Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Motion to suppress evidence in libel case

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous vAVKlB1
    4K views2 pages
    The accused, through counsel, filed a motion to suppress evidence that was unlawfully seized pursuant to a search warrant. Specifically, the motion argues that (1) the search warrant was served 5 days past the allowable 10-day period, and is therefore void, and (2) the motor vehicle seized does not fall under the scope of property that can be lawfully seized. As such, the accused requests that all objects seized, including a personal computer, printed articles, motor vehicle, and other materials, be declared inadmissible.

    Original Description:

    Motion to Suppress Evidence

    Original Title

    Motion to Suppress Evidence

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The accused, through counsel, filed a motion to suppress evidence that was unlawfully seized pursuant to a search warrant. Specifically, the motion argues that (1) the search warrant was served 5 days past the allowable 10-day period, and is therefore void, and (2) the motor vehicle seized does not fall under the scope of property that can be lawfully seized. As such, the accused requests that all objects seized, including a personal computer, printed articles, motor vehicle, and other materials, be declared inadmissible.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4K views2 pages

    Motion to suppress evidence in libel case

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous vAVKlB1
    The accused, through counsel, filed a motion to suppress evidence that was unlawfully seized pursuant to a search warrant. Specifically, the motion argues that (1) the search warrant was served 5 days past the allowable 10-day period, and is therefore void, and (2) the motor vehicle seized does not fall under the scope of property that can be lawfully seized. As such, the accused requests that all objects seized, including a personal computer, printed articles, motor vehicle, and other materials, be declared inadmissible.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Third Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT City of Angeles, Pampanga Branch _____

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, versusJOHN DOE Accused. x -------------------------------------- x MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE UNLAWFULY SEIZED CRIM. CASE No. 987654-21 -forLibel

    The ACCUSED, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honourable Court, respectfully moves for the suppression of objects seized on 25 January 2014, based on the following conditions: 1. Search Warrant No. 5678 was served on the 15th day and is, thus, void. 2. The motor vehicle seized does not fall within the property that may be lawfully seized. Discussion Search Warrant No. 5678 was served beyond the 10 day period, thus, should be void 1. Rule 126, Sec. 10 of the Revised Rules of Court provides expressly that a search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void. 2. Search Warrant No. 5678 is dated 10 January 2014. It was served on the accused on the 15th day from its date, which is 25 January 2014. This is certified to by the Sworn Inventory and Return executed by Major Juan Dela Cruz, the leader of the searching team (copy of which is already part of the records). A search was made on the same day, 25 January 2014; pursuant to said search, certain objects were seized and delivered to the court. Contrary to law, the Search Warrant is void and must be quashed. 3. No valid seizure may be made under a void warrant. For this reason, the following objects must be suppressed: personal computer, printed material of the published article in question, motor vehicle, and other write ups.

    PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for that all object seized under the void Search Warrant No. 5678 be INADMISSIBLE under the exclusionary rule in Article III, Section 3(2) in relation to section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

    Angeles City, Philippines, February 27, 2014. JCM LAW FIRM Counsel for Accused 101 Marlim Mansion Hotel, Balibago, Angeles City, Pampanga By: Joannabie C. Mesina IBP No. _____________ PTR No. _____________ Roll No. _____________

    NOTICE OF HEARING/COPY FURNISHED COPY FURNISHED: Office of the City Prosecutor Hall of Justice Angeles City JAP LAW FIRM Private Prosecutor Kalayaan Bldg, Dolores, San Fernando, Pampanga Branch Clerk of Court Regional Trial Court Angeles City Branch 58 GREETINGS: Please submit this Motion to Suppress Evidence on March 10, 2014 at 10:00 AM. for the consideration and approval of this Honorable Court. Joannabie C. Mesina EXPLANATION A copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence was filed and served upon the prosecution via registered mail on grounds of proximity of the offices of counsels, practicability and time constraints. Joannabie C. Mesina

    You might also like