PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION Bache vs. Ruiz Facts: After an instruction from the Comm.Of Internal revenue, revenue Examiner, Rodolfo de Leon and his witness Arturo Logronio applied for a search warrant against the petitioners , Bache and Co (Phil) for violation of Section 46 (a) and pertinent provisions of the NIR Code, particularly 53, 72,73, 208 and 209. By means of a note, the respondent judge ordered the Deputy Clerk of the Court to depose the witnesses. After an oath, the respondent judge, Vivencio Ruiz signed the application and directed to the peace officers for the serving of the warrant. The officers confiscated 6 boxes of documents by virtue of the warrant. The petitioners, in return filed a motion to dissolve the Search warrant before the CFI Rizal, but was later denied. Hence this petition of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus praying for the quashal of the search warrant issued by the Respondent Judge. Issue: What requisites of a valid search warrant is wanting in the case at bar? Held: The case of Bache and Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 835 (1971), pointed out that one of the tests to determine the particularity in the description of objects to be seized under a search warrant is when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. A careful examination of the Search Warrants shows that they were worded in such a manner that the enumerated items to be seized could bear a direct relation to the offense of violation of Section 1 and 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, penalizing illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives. What the warrants authorized was the seizure of articles proscribed by that decree, and no other Constitutional provision provides 1) that a search warrant can only be issued upon probable cause 2) single warrant for a single offense 3) particular description of the objects to be seized and 4) the RRC provides that a judge should personally examine the complainant or witnesses that he may produce under oath to prove existence of a probable cause. The deposition should be in writing and should be attached to the record and any affidavits presented to him In the case at bar there is no personal examination done by the respondent judge to the witnesses. While it may be true that deposition is in printed from, subscribed and sworn, the respondent did not even asked the witnesses and the complainant any question to prove existence of a probable cause. Second, the statutory provision of a single warrant for single offense rule is also violated. The single search warrant was issued for 4 distinct offenses. a) 46 (a) failure to file income tax returns, b) b3 (Withholding income tax at source) c) 209 (failure to make a return of receipts, sales or business gross value output and d) 208 unlawful pursuit of business. Lastly, the search warrant does not indicated a particular or specific description to the object to be seized. A violation in the objective to eliminate general search warrant. *** a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law, by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search & seizure.. People vs Tee Facts: Tee is a Chinese national in his forties, a businessman, and a resident of Baguio City. A raid conducted by operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Philippine National Police Narcotics Command (PNP NARCOM) at premises allegedly leased by appellant and at his residence yielded huge quantities of marijuana. On July 20, 1998, appellant moved to quash the search warrant on the ground that it was too general and that the NBI had not complied with the requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant. In an information dated July 24, 1998, City Prosecutor of Baguio City charged Modesto Tee, alias “Estoy Tee,” with illegal possession of marijuana, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in his possession the Ninety-two (92) bricks of dried flowering tops separately contained in four (4) boxes One hundred fifty-eight (158) bricks, twenty-one (21) blocks, and twenty-three (23) bags of dried flowering tops separately contained in thirteen (13) sacks, with a total weight of 336.93 kilograms. Six hundred two (602) bricks of dried flowering tops separately contained in twenty-six (boxes) and a yellow sack, weighing 591.81 kilograms and all having a grand total weight of 928.74 kilograms, a prohibited drug, without the authority of law to possess, in violation of the above-cited provision of law. the prosecution moved to “amend” the foregoing charge sheet “considering that subject marijuana were seized in two (2) different places. As a result, the information was split into two separate information. Prosecution witness Danilo Abratique, a Baguio-based taxi driver, and the appellant Modesto Tee are well acquainted with each other, since Abratique’s wife is the sister of Tee’s sister-in[9] law. Sometime in late June 1998, appellant asked Abratique to find [10] him a place for the storage of smuggled cigarettes. Abratique brought appellant to his friend, Albert Ballesteros, who had a house for rent in Bakakeng, Baguio City. After negotiating the terms and conditions, Ballesteros agreed to rent out his place to appellant. Appellant then brought several boxes of purported “blue seal” cigarettes to the leased premises. Tomas. was hearsay. The search was witnessed by appellant. and not that he believes the place contains a specific amount of it. Benguet. Abratique’s testimony. Nazarea agreed to rent a room to appellant. as the trial court observed. Sto. Appellant avers that the phrase “an undetermined amount of marijuana” as used in the search warrant fails to satisfy the [29] requirement of Article III. the judge issued a warrant directing the NBI to search appellant’s residence.. Issue: WON. barangay officials. however. appellant contended that the physical evidence of the prosecution was illegally obtained. and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. alerted by information that appellant would retrieve the sacks of prohibited drugs that day. garage. He then asked Abratique to find him a place where he could store the contraband.Shortly thereafter. The total weight of the haul was 591. 27 Dr. “undetermined amount of marijuana or Indian hemp. with some PNP NARCOM personnel in tow. and storeroom of appellant’s [25] residence. Fearful of being involved. Ballesteros informed Abratique.93 [18] kilograms. has satisfied the Constitution’s requirements on particularity of description. 15800-R and as earlier stated. Edwin Fianza and other NBI operatives conducted a stake out at No. which was being managed by Abratique’s aunt. they noticed that several PNP NARCOM personnel were [17] also watching the place. 1998. NBI Special Agent Darwin Lising. with Abratique as his witness. 6. and (3) limits the things to be seized to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the [40] warrant is being issued. proceeded to appellant’s residence where they served the warrant [21] upon appellant himself. given its nearly similar wording. Later that evening. which might be violative of the Bill of Rights. The NBI then learned that the PNP NARCOM had received a tip from one of their informers regarding the presence of a huge amount of drugs in that place. . inadmissible in evidence against appellant. Appellant initially contends that the warrant. Baguio City. the search warrant is valid despite the lack of particularity of the description? Held: The contitutional requirement of particularity of description of search warrant is primarily meant to be enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items. duly convicted him of illegal possession of marijuana and sentenced him to death. QM Subdivision. the NBI agents became apprehensive that the whole operation could be jeopardized. the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that a search warrant is issued if a judge finds probable cause that the place to be searched contains prohibited drugs. applied for a search warrant from RTC Judge Antonio Reyes at his residence. He insists that Abratique could already estimate the amount of marijuana supposed to be found at appellant’s residence since Abratique helped to transport the same. Abratique and appellant unloaded and stored there the sacks of marijuana brought from [14] Sablan. Thus. the trial court agreed with appellant that the taking of the 336. Said warrant imposes a meaningful restriction upon the objects to be seized by the officers serving the warrant. Appellant then hired Abratique’s taxi and transported the boxes of cannabis from the Ballesteros place to appellant’s residence at Km. In his defense. Both later prevailed upon appellant to remove them from the premises. it prevents exploratory searches. Moreover. totaling 336. Green Valley. Ballesteros learned that the boxes stored in his place were not “blue seal” cigarettes but marijuana. (2) expresses a conclusion of fact – not of law – by which the peace officers may be guided in making the search and seizure. Cariño St. Baguio City. Appellant was accordingly acquitted of the charge. Benguet on the pretext of buying and transporting strawberries. The OSG points out that. Nazarea Abreau.93 kilograms of marijuana was the result of an illegal search and hence. Section 2 of the Constitution that the things to be seized must be particularly described.” was too general and hence. 27. They sought the permission of Nazarea Abreau to enter the room rented by appellant. Thereafter. and members of the media. in our view. Appellant insisted that the search warrant was too general and the process by which said warrant was acquired did not satisfy the constitutional requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant. has no leg to stand on. The NBI and PNP NARCOM agreed to have a joint operation. The search warrant in the present case. The NBI team then searched the rented premises and found four (4) boxes and thirteen (13) sacks of marijuana. The description therein is: (1) as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. For the appellee. appellant hired Abratique to drive him to La Trinidad. Dr. being the products of an unlawful search.81 [26] kilograms. void for vagueness. Appellant was arrested for illegal possession of marijuana. The seized items were then submitted to the NBI laboratory for testing. the trial court found that the prosecution’s evidence was more than ample to prove appellant’s guilt in Criminal Case No. The NBI operatives. Abratique was aware that they were transporting marijuana as some of the articles in the sacks became exposed in the process of loading. The law enforcers found 26 boxes and a sack of dried [24] marijuana in the water tank. which was heavily relied upon by the judge who issued the warrant. Dontogan. She acceded and allowed them entry. Abratique brought appellant to his grandmother’s house at No. However. Appellant’s contention. NBI Forensic Chemist Maria Carina Madrigal conducted the tests and showed these to be marijuana. hence inadmissible. which directed the peace officers to search for and seize “an undetermined amount of marijuana. however. As the day wore on and appellant did not show up. Upon reaching La Trinidad.” in our view. it is impossible beforehand to determine the exact amount of prohibited drugs that a person has on himself. On the morning of July 1. Cariño St. appellant directed Abratique to proceed to Sablan. members of his family. where appellant proceeded to load several sacks of marijuana in Abratique’s taxi. While the NBI agents were conducting their surveillance. Ruling: Yes. One of them was the defendant Veloso. As the search warrant stated that John Doe had gambling apparatus in his possession in the building occupied by him at No. the chief of the gambling squad. Veloso bit Rosacker in the right forearm. 124 Calle Arzobispo. and chips were taken from his pockets. Indeed." is void. nearly fifty persons were apprehended by the police. and long sheets of paper. Townsend. F. Through the combined efforts of Townsend and Rosacker. in addition. of reglas de monte. It was necessary for the policemen to conduct him downstairs. -At last the patience of the officers was exhausted. without other and further descriptions of the person to be apprehended. He was also the manager of the club. was a sufficient designation of the premises to be searched. Veloso was finally laid down on the floor. Veloso without difficulty. Veloso read it and told Townsend that he was Representative Veloso and not John Doe. J. the manager of the club. City of Manila. 1923.mentioned. A warrant for the apprehension of a person whose true name is unknown. Veloso. City of Manila. applied for. Philippine Islands. the building located at No. one band of police including policeman Rosacker. and gave him a blow in another part of the body. in the Philippine Code on Criminal Procedure that “a search warrant shall not issue except for probable cause and upon application supported by oath particularly describing the place to be searched and the person of thing to be seized. In the first place. broke in the outer door. Detective Andres Geronimo of the secret service of the City of Manila. Veloso resisted so tenaciously that three policemen were needed to place him in the patrol wagon. -All of the persons arrested were searched and then conducted to the patrol wagons. and Veloso insisting in his refusal to submit to the search. as if it contained gambling utensils. so as to enter a window of the house. At the door.PEOPLE v VELOSO Facts: -In May. Townsend answered that Veloso was considered as John Doe. As a result. contain the best description personae possible to be obtained of the person or persons to be apprehended. among other things. and such warrant will not justify the officer in acting under it. Accordingly. on May 19. Such a warrant must. and the latter showed him the search warrant. cardboards.” The name and description of the accused should be inserted in the body of the warrant and where the name is unknown there must be such a description of the person accused as will enable the officer to identify him when found. About five minutes was consumed in conversation between the policemen and the accused the policemen insisting on searching Veloso. cards. headed by Townsend." This. 1923. As Veloso's pocket was bulging. the affidavit for the search warrant and the search warrant itself described the building to be searched as "the building No. give his occupation and place of residence. -Once inside the Parliamentary Club. and as this John Doe was Jose Ma. the police could identify John Doe as Jose Ma. City of Manila. and should state his personal appearance and peculiarities. Veloso again refused to obey and shouted offensive epithets against the police department. So policeman Rosacker took hold of Veloso only to meet with his resistance. Veloso was at that time a member of the House of Representative of the Philippine Legislature. by the name of "John Doe" or "Richard Roe. was used by an organization known as the Parliamentary Club." "whose other or true name in unknown. Veloso asked Townsend what he wanted. RD: It is provided. They found the doors to the premises closed and barred. Thus provided. ascended a telephone pole. had been to the club and verified this fact. without doubt. the police attempted to raid the Parliamentary Club a little after three in the afternoon of the date above. -The police of Manila had reliable information that the so-called Parliamentary Club was nothing more than a gambling house. Other policemen. Issue: WON the search warrant and the arrest of Veloso was valid. . and obtained a search warrant from Judge Garduño of the municipal court. and this description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person or persons upon whom the warrant is to be served. Townsend required Veloso to show him the evidence of the game. on May 25. 1923. Jose Ma. which injured the policeman quite severely. and any other circumstances by means of which he can be identified. 124 Calle Arzobispo. 124 Calle Arzobispo. and that the police had no right to search the house. which "has first taken cognizance of said cases. ISSUE WON.On August 10. (to the incident) that happened in the afternoon of July 27. On the same day. The letter adverted to the possibility of innocent persons being implicated by the parties involved on both sides none of whom was. . as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) "John Does" not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would Identify. . MICROSOFT CORPORATION and LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. the benefit of the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. the warrant must. National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI") Agent Dominador Samiano. On 2 September 1996. a shooting incident occurred in Pantao. Immediately the Provincial Fiscal addressed a "1st indorsement" to the respondent Judge. as regards its unidentified subjects. The RTC found probable cause to issue the search warrants after examining NBI Agent Samiano. Maxicorp filed a motion to quash the search warrants alleging that there was no probable cause for their issuance and that the warrants are in the form of "general warrants. . matter of hours on a Saturday when municipal trial courts are open only from 8:00 a. transmitting Atty. 1985. MAXICORP. with both attackers and defenders suffering casualties. The three testified on what they discovered during their respective visits to Maxicorp. besides. a lawyer (Atty. Maxicorp filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking to set aside the RTC’s order. Nothing in the record before this Court belies or discredits those affirmations which have. On 23 December 1998. a criminal complaint for multiple murder was filed. INC. which left at least five persons dead and two others wounded. Lalabuan. had been ambushed.m. Batuampar) of one of the widows filed a letter-complaint with the fiscal. According to one version. Armed with the search warrants. Bayhon issued Search Warrants against Maxicorp. identified and promised that supporting affidavits would shortly be filed.PANGANDAMAN v CASAR FACTS .Also without appreciable merit is petitioners' other argument that there was scarcely time to determine probable cause against sixtyfour persons (the fourteen petitioners and fifty "Does") within a . asking for a “full blast preliminary investigation”. On 24 July 1997. Facts: On 25 July 1996..On Aug 14. and computer technician Felixberto Pante ("Pante"). warrants against John Does denied. The rule is and has always been that such issuance need only await a finding of probable cause. Petitioners moved for reconsideration. however. the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s order denying Maxicorp’s motion to quash the search warrants. 1985. it is of the nature of a general warrant. 1985. John Benedict Sacriz ("Sacriz"). be voided. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion on 29 November 1999.. Another version has it that a group that was on its way to another place. Judge William M. After conducting a preliminary examination of the applicant and his witnesses. respondent Judge examined personally the 3 witnesses. Lanao del Sur." The RTC denied Maxicorp’s motion on 22 January 1997.Insofar.On July 27. NBI Agent Samiano also presented certifications from petitioners that they have not authorized Maxicorp to perform the witnessed activities using petitioners’ products. Batuampar seeking recall of the warrant of arrest and subsequent holding of a "thorough investigation" on the ground that the Judge's initial investigation had been "hasty and manifestly haphazard" with "no searching questions" having been propounded. Dispositive Warrants against petitioners upheld.The next day. one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once anathematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of the subject. the Judge approved the complaint and issued a warrant of arrest against the 14 petitioners (who were named by the witnesses) and 50 "John Does." be forwarded to his office. an ex-parte motion was filed by Atty. Batuampar's letter and requesting that "all cases that may be filed relative . also in Masiu. 1985. therefore. the Search Warrants are in the Nature of General Warrants? HELD YES . What in fact transpired is still unclear. . however. vs. The RTC also denied Maxicorp’s motion for reconsideration. Thereafter. not the completion of the entire procedure of preliminary investigation. Jr." hence the present petition. The respondent Judge denied the motion for "lack of basis. to 1:00 p. ("NBI Agent Samiano") filed several applications for search warrants in the RTC against Maxicorp for alleged violation of Section 29 of PD 49 and Article 189 of the RPC. armed men had attacked a residence in Pantao. NBI agents conducted on 25 July 1996 a search of Maxicorp’s premises and seized property fitting the description stated in the search warrants. must be rejected that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest against petitioners without first completing the preliminary investigation in accordance with the prescribed procedure. . Masiu." Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized. Masiu. petitioners.The argument.m. 022782 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. respectively. et al. advertisements and other paraphernalia bearing the copyrights and/or trademarks owned by MICROSOFT CORPORATION. and the other accused in Criminal Case No. e or f. and that respondents be enjoined from using the articles thus seized as evidence against petitioner Jose Burgos. a search warrant shall issue "in connection with one specific offense. receptacles. The articles to be seized were not only sufficiently identified physically. entitled People v. After examining the wording of the warrants issued. should be returned to Maxicorp. b.The Court of Appeals held that NBI Agent Samiano failed to present during the preliminary examination conclusive evidence that Maxicorp produced or sold the counterfeit products. paraphernalia. The scope of this description is all-embracing since it covers property used for personal or other purposes not related to copyright infringement or unfair competition. Thus. The Court of Appeals based its reversal on its perceived infirmity of paragraph (e) of the search warrants the RTC issued. documents. Q. prints. not falling under paragraphs a. Paragraph (c) states: c) Sundry items such as labels. A search warrant must state particularly the place to be searched and the objects to be seized. Jr. Measured BURGOS versus CHIEF OF STAFF Facts: Assailed in this petition for certiorari prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction is the validity of two [2] search warrants issued on December 7. the items not sufficiently described may be cut off without 45 destroying the whole warrant. The description of the property to be seized need not be technically accurate or precise. they were also specifically identified by stating their relation to the offense charged. publication and distribution of the said newspapers. CD-ROM drives. The appellate court found that similarly worded warrants. under which the premises of the "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers. equipment. . the Search Warrants are in the Nature of General Warrants? Ruling: against this standard we find that paragraph (e) is not a general warrant. 1982 by Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano of the then CFI of Rizal [Quezon City]. or which contain. However. Paragraph (e) specifically refers to those articles used or intended for use in the illegal and unauthorized copying of petitioners’ software. photocopying machines and other equipment or paraphernalia used or intended to be used in the illegal and unauthorized copying or reproduction of Microsoft software and their manuals. boxes. This is a protection against potential abuse. without the authority of MICROSOFT CORPORATION. Jr. It is only required that a search warrant be specific as far as the 38 circumstances will ordinarily allow. this rule requires that the warrant must state that the articles subject of the search and seizure are used or intended for use in the commission of a specific offense. any and all Microsoft trademarks and copyrights. as well as numerous papers. motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing. partially defective in specifying some items sought to be seized yet particular with respect to the other items. under Section 4. A partially defective warrant remains valid as to the items 44 specifically described in the warrant." The articles described must bear a direct relation 34 to the offense for which the warrant is issued. publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper. The exclusionary rule found in Section 3(2) of Article III of the Constitution renders inadmissible in any proceeding all evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizure. Neither does it limit the seizure to products used in copyright infringement or unfair competition. should be nullified as a whole. e) Computer hardware. The Court of Appeals pointed out that the sales receipt NBI Agent Samiano presented as evidence that he bought the products from Maxicorp was in the name of a certain "Joel Diaz. Maxicorp argues that the warrants issued against it are too broad in scope and lack the specificity required with respect to the objects to be seized. all items seized under paragraph (c) of the search warrants. no provision of law exists which requires that a warrant. were seized. wrappers. d. Moreover. all of which noticeably employ the phrase "used or intended to be used." were previously 36 held void by this Court. we find paragraph (c) of the search warrants lacking in particularity. Petitioners further pray that a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued for the return of the seized articles. keyboards. almost any item in the petitioner’s store can be seized on the ground that it is "used or intended to be used" in the illegal or unauthorized copying or reproduction of the private 35 respondents’ software and their manuals. monitor screens and diskettes. Thus. Still. It is necessary to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize. The nature of the description should vary according to whether the identity of 39 the property or its character is a matter of concern. In addition." Issue: WON. Paragraph (c) simply calls for the seizure of all items bearing the Microsoft logo. Jr. the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Maxicorp and reversed the RTC’s Order thus: Under the foregoing language. display or otherwise exhibit. A search warrant is severable. and office and printing machines. Jose Burgos. to the 33 end that no unreasonable searches and seizures be committed. This language meets the test of specificity. packages. the description covers property that Maxicorp may have bought legitimately from Microsoft or its licensed distributors. Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. whether legitimately possessed or not. were searched. including central processing units including hard disks. books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos. The evident purpose for this requirement is to limit the articles to be seized only to those particularly described in the search warrant. A-1 Search Warrants indicated Uy 4) Regarding the arguments of the petitioner that there is an alleged lack of particularity in the description of the things seized. Tango. Mere generalization will not suffice. under oath or affirmation. the petitioner argues contend that the warrant is invalidated and the objects seized by the police enforcers are inadmissible in evidence." is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Unregistered delivery receipts. The constitution requires that objects to be seized should be particularly described so as to eliminate general warrants. Job orders. In Stanford v. Movement for Free Philippines. 2 packs of chemicals and others).. A search warrant must conform strictly constitutional and statutory requirements. State of Texas. 2) The court held that these descriptions failed to conform the requirements set forth by the Constitution. In the case at bar the things to be seized are described as: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Multiple sets of Books of Accounts. The Probable cause must be determine by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person In the determination of the probable cause. There is also an alleged lack of particularity in the description of the things seized.. They also alleged that other articles not listed in the warrants were taken (e. the respondent-judge Mercedez Dadole issues three successive Search Warrants against the petitioner Uy Chin Ho. They also alleged that other articles not listed in the warrants were taken (e. records. namely. Abadilla which conducted a surveillance of the premises prior to the filing of the application for the search warrants saying "that the evidence gathered and collated by our unit clearly shows that the premises and the articles and things described were used and are continuously being used for subversive activities in conspiracy with. Sales.g. Another factor that makes the search warrants constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants. illegal organizations such as the Light-a-Fire Movement. Constitutional Requirements: 1) 2) 3) Must be issued upon probable cause. the application and/or its supporting affidavits must contain a specification. and April 6 Movement. Issue: Was the Search warrant issued by the respondent Judge valid as to the particularity of description? Held: Yes. There is also inconsistencies in the name of the persons named in the warrants. Ledgers. its address “Hernan Cortes St. Thus. the broad statement in Col. One bound gate pass. One bound gate pass. Surety Agreement.Statements contained in the joint affidavit of Alejandro M. after executing an affidavit and tipping of the NBI. contending that the respondent judge violated the pertinent provision of the Constitution and Rules of Court in relation with the requisites of a valid search warrant. The judge." 3) 4) 5) Chin Ho alias Frank Uy while A-2 indicated Uy Chin Ho alias Frank Uy and Unifish Packing Corporation. the US SC declared this type of warrant void. the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce. Contentions 1) In a caption of the A-1 Search Warrant. news publications and other documents which were used and are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion punishable under Presidential Decree 885. Uy and BIR Facts: Rodrigo Abos. There is also an allegation that Probable cause is wanting. despite of . as amended . for violation of Section 253 (attempt to evade and defeat tax) of the NIR Code. After the search. Cebu City” is inconsistent with the address indicated in the succeeding two search warrants which is in Mandaue City. members of the Metrocom Intelligence and Security Group under Col. to the Ruling: When the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive materials. owner of Unifish Packing Corporation (Mandaue). and The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. Production record Books. Surety Agreement. Gutierrez and Pedro U. one composition notebook with Chinese characters. as in the case at bar. they argue that the search warrant is invalid. and to promote the objective of. Bereft of such particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause. Issue: Is the search warrant is in the nature of general warrant ? 6) Because of these irregularities. the petitioner filed an appeal to the SC. journals etc. Thus. Unregistered Purchase and Sales invoices.g. the judge must examine. Abadilla's application that petitioner "is in possession or has in his control printing equipment and other paraphernalia. Two warrants issued at one time for one crime and one place. 2 packs of chemicals and others). one composition notebook with Chinese characters. said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant and it was a grave error for respondent judge to have done so. stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is intending to publish. Corporate Financial Records Bank Statements. The seizure of these objects is valid. The place to be searched in the warrant is controlling . Note definition: Search Warrant. In the case of the objects seized which are not specified in the warrant. The use of generic terms are acceptable only when a more specific description of the things to be seized is unavailable. commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court. the respondent judge still employed generic descriptions.the witnesses’ procurement of documents need to be searched. the generic description is needed in this case since there is no way to make these documents specified because they are UNREGISTERED. signed by the judge and directed to a peace officer. it should be returned to the petitioners. Defined A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the PPI. However in the case of unregistered delivery receipts and unregistered purchase and sales invoices is excusable. The failure to employ specific description will render the warrant invalid.