Descripción: Instrumento para evaluar lenguaje en niños.
Wills and Succession
CivRev1_Vda. de Espiritu vs CFI
ddd
09. PLDT vs. ALVAREZFull description
Case Digest
Descrição completa
DSASDFull description
Full description
mineriaDescripción completa
pruebasDescripción completa
Descripción completa
Full description
full text
Descripción: Portafolio
temazcal maracas
for maracas and tapeDescripción completa
Full description
MATEMATICAS SUPERIORES Y MATLABDescrição completa
DFH según Koppitz con CI, indicadores emocionales y categorías evaluativas en excel
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES GR No. L-45358 Alvarez vs. The Court of First Instance J. Imperial
[not my digest] IM!RTANT E!"E Judge Eduardo Gutierre !a"id # $res. Judge% &'I (aya)as* respondent Nar+iso ,l"are # petitioner FACTS . Jun. 3% 3/0 3/0 t1e +1ie2 +1ie2 o2 o2 t1e se+ret se+ret ser"i+e ser"i+e o2 t1e ,nti- ,nti-sury sury oard oard ent ent to respond respondent ent Judge Judge allegin alleging g t1at t1at a++ordi a++ording ng to relia)l relia)le e in2ormat in2ormation ion%% petition petitioner er is 6eeping in 1is 1ouse in In2anta% (aya)as do+uments% re+eipts% lists% +1its and ot1er papers used )y 1im in +onne+tion it1 1is a+ti"ities as a money lender +1arging usurious rates o2 interest in "iolation o2 t1e la. 7. In 1is oat1% oat1% t1e +1ie2 +1ie2 o2 t1e t1e se+r se+ret et ser"i ser"i+e +e did not sear sear to t1e t1e trut trut1 1 o2 1is statements upon 1is 6noledge o2 t1e 2a+ts )ut t1e in2ormation re+ei"ed )y 1im 2rom a relia)l relia)le e person. person. pon t1is uestione uestioned d a22ida" a22ida"it% it% t1e 9udge issued issued t1e sear+1 arrant% ordering t1e sear+1 o2 t1e petitioner:s 1ouse at any time o2 t1e day or nig1t% t1e seiure o2 t1e )oo6s and do+uments and t1e immediate deli"ery o2 su+1 to respondent Judge. 3. ;it1 said arrant arrant%% se"eral se"eral agents o2 t1e ,nti-su ,nti-sury ry oard entered entered petitione petitioner2 all t1e rig1ts o2 a +itien% 2e are o2 greater importan+e or more essential to 1is pea+e and 1appiness t1an t1e rig1t o2 personal se+urity% •
•
1
•
•
•
and t1at in"ol"es t1e e?emption o2 1is pri"ate a22airs% )oo6s% and papers 2rom t1e inspe+tion and s+rutiny o2 ot1ers. ;1ile t1e poer to sear+1 and seie is ne+essary to t1e pu)li+ el2are% still it must )e e?er+ised and t1e la en2or+ed it1out transgressing t1e +onstitutional rig1ts o2 +itiens. ,s t1e prote+tion o2 t1e +itien and t1e maintenan+e o2 1is +onstitutional rig1t is one o2 t1e 1ig1est duties and pri"ileges o2 t1e +ourt% t1ese +onstitutional guaranties s1ould )e gi"en a li)eral +onstru+tion or a stri+t +onstru+tion in 2a"or o2 t1e indi"idual% to pre"ent stealt1y en+roa+1ment upon% or gradual depre+iation on% t1e rig1ts se+ured )y t1em. @in+e t1e pro+eeding is a drasti+ one% it is t1e general rule t1at statutes aut1oriing sear+1es and seiure or sear+1 arrants must )e stri+tly +onstrued. nreasona)le sear+1es and seiures are a mena+e against 1i+1 t1e +onstitutional guarantee a22ord 2ull prote+tion. (1e term Aunreasona)le sear+1 and seiureA is not de2ined in t1e &onstitution or in General >rders No. 58% and it is said to 1a"e no 2i?ed% a)solute or un+1angea)le meaning% alt1oug1 t1e term 1as )een de2ined in general language. ,ll illegal sear+1es and seiure are unreasona)le 1ile la2ul ones are reasona)le. ;1at +onstitutes a reasona)le or unreasona)le sear+1 or seiure in any parti+ular +ase is purely a 9udi+ial uestion% determina)le 2rom a +onsideration o2 t1e +ir+umstan+es in"ol"ed% in+luding0 o t1e purpose o2 t1e sear+1% o t1e presen+e or a)sen+e or pro)a)le +ause% o t1e manner in 1i+1 t1e sear+1 and seiure as made% o t1e pla+e or t1ing sear+1ed% and o t1e +1ara+ter o2 t1e arti+les pro+ured.
,. #hat is re-uire' of the oath in the issuance of search *arrant+ Neit1er t1e &onstitution nor General >rders. No. 58 pro"ides t1at it is o2 imperati"e ne+essity to ta6e t1e deposition o2 t1e itnesses to )e presented )y t1e appli+ant or +omplainant in addition to t1e a22ida"it o2 t1e latter. (1e purpose o2 )ot1 in reuiring t1e presentation o2 depositions is not1ing more t1an to satis2y t1e +ommitting magistrate o2 t1e e?isten+e o2 pro)a)le +ause. (1ere2ore% i2 t1e a22ida"it o2 t1e appli+ant or +omplainant is su22i+ient% t1e 9udge may dispense it1 t1at o2 ot1er itnesses. o Inasmu+1 as t1e a22ida"it o2 t1e agent in t1is +ase as insu22i+ient •
•
)e+ause 1is 6noledge o2 t1e 2a+ts as not personal )ut merely 1earsay% it is t1e duty o2 t1e 9udge to reuire t1e a22ida"it o2 one or more itnesses 2or t1e purpose o2 determining t1e e?isten+e o2 pro)a)le +ause to arrant t1e issuan+e o2 t1e sear+1 arrant. 2
;1en t1e a22ida"it o2 t1e appli+ant o2 t1e +omplaint +ontains su22i+ient 2a+ts it1in 1is personal and dire+t 6noledge% it is su22i+ient i2 t1e 9udge is satis2ied t1at t1ere e?ist pro)a)le +ause* 1en t1e appli+ant
3. Can the search *arrant 1e serve' at ni0ht+ No. @e+tion B o2 General >rders% No. 58 aut1ories t1at t1e sear+1 )e made at nig1t 1en it is positi"ely asserted in t1e a22ida"its t1at t1e property is on t1e person or in t1e pla+e ordered to )e sear+1ed. ,s e 1a"e de+lared t1e a22ida"its insu22i+ient and t1e arrant issued e?+lusi"ely upon it illegal% our +on+lusion is t1at t1e +ontention is eually ell 2ounded and t1at t1e sear+1 +ould not legally )e made at nig1t. •
•
4. Is the seizure of evi'ence to use in an investi0ation constitutional+ No. ,t t1e 1earing o2 t1e in+idents o2 t1e +ase raised )e2ore t1e +ourt it +learly appeared t1at t1e )oo6s and do+uments 1ad really )een seied to ena)le t1e ,nti-sury oard to +ondu+t an in"estigation and later use all or some o2 t1e arti+les in uestion as e"iden+e against t1e petitioner in t1e +riminal +ases t1at may )e 2iled against 1im. (1e seiure o2 )oo6s and do+uments )y means o2 a sear+1 arrant% 2or t1e purpose o2 using t1em as e"iden+e in a +riminal +ase against t1e person in 1ose possession t1ey ere 2ound% is unconstitutional )e+ause it ma6es t1e arrant unreasona)le% and it is eui"alent to a "iolation o2 t1e +onstitutional pro"ision pro1i)iting t1e +ompulsion o2 an a++used to testi2y against 1imsel2. •
•
5. #as there a *aiver of constitutional 0uarantees (a'e 12 )etitioner+ No. (1e ,nti-sury oard insinuates in its anser t1at t1e petitioner +annot no uestion t1e "alidity o2 t1e sear+1 arrant or t1e pro+eedings 1ad su)seuent to t1e issuan+e t1ereo2% )e+ause 1e 1as ai"ed 1is +onstitutional rig1ts in proposing a +ompromise 1ere)y 1e agreed to pay a 2ine o2 $7BB 2or t1e purpose o2 e"ading t1e +riminal pro+eeding or pro+eedings. ;e are o2 t1e opinion t1at t1ere as no su+1 ai"er% 2irst% )e+ause t1e petitioner 1as emp1ati+ally denied t1e o22er o2 +ompromise and% se+ond% •
•
3
•
•
)e+ause i2 t1ere as a +ompromise it re2erred )ut to t1e institution o2 +riminal pro+eedings 2ro "iolation o2 t1e ,nti-sury La. (1e ai"er ould 1a"e )een a good de2ense 2or t1e respondents 1ad t1e petitioner "oluntarily +onsented to t1e sear+1 and seiure o2 t1e arti+les in uestion% )ut su+1 as not t1e +ase )e+ause t1e petitioner protested 2rom t1e )eginning and stated 1is protest in riting in t1e insu22i+ient in"entory 2urnis1ed 1im )y t1e agents. (1ere2ore% it appearing t1at at least nineteen o2 t1e do+uments in uestion ere seied 2or t1e purpose o2 using t1em as e"iden+e against t1e petitioner in t1e +riminal pro+eeding or pro+eedings 2or "iolation against 1im% e 1old t1at t1e sear+1 arrant issued is illegal and t1at t1e do+uments s1ould )e returned to 1im.