Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Motion To Suppress Evidence and Return of Property Seized

    Uploaded by

    KM Mac
    The accused files a motion to suppress evidence seized and return property based on two grounds: 1) The search warrant is void as it was served on the 11th day, beyond the 10 day limit, so any seizure under it is invalid. 2) The motor vehicle seized is unrelated to the libel charge and is not an item that can be lawfully seized as evidence. The accused requests all seized items be declared inadmissible and the motor vehicle be returned.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Motion To Suppress Evidence and Return of Property Seized

    Uploaded by

    KM Mac
    2K views3 pages
    The accused files a motion to suppress evidence seized and return property based on two grounds: 1) The search warrant is void as it was served on the 11th day, beyond the 10 day limit, so any seizure under it is invalid. 2) The motor vehicle seized is unrelated to the libel charge and is not an item that can be lawfully seized as evidence. The accused requests all seized items be declared inadmissible and the motor vehicle be returned.

    Original Description:

    Philippine Sample

    Original Title

    Motion to Suppress Evidence and Return of Property Seized

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The accused files a motion to suppress evidence seized and return property based on two grounds: 1) The search warrant is void as it was served on the 11th day, beyond the 10 day limit, so any seizure under it is invalid. 2) The motor vehicle seized is unrelated to the libel charge and is not an item that can be lawfully seized as evidence. The accused requests all seized items be declared inadmissible and the motor vehicle be returned.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views3 pages

    Motion To Suppress Evidence and Return of Property Seized

    Uploaded by

    KM Mac
    The accused files a motion to suppress evidence seized and return property based on two grounds: 1) The search warrant is void as it was served on the 11th day, beyond the 10 day limit, so any seizure under it is invalid. 2) The motor vehicle seized is unrelated to the libel charge and is not an item that can be lawfully seized as evidence. The accused requests all seized items be declared inadmissible and the motor vehicle be returned.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The accused is filing a motion to suppress evidence that was seized and requesting the return of a motor vehicle. They are arguing that the search warrant used to seize the evidence was void as it was served after 10 days. They are also arguing that the motor vehicle seized is unrelated to the libel charge and should be returned.

    The accused is being charged with libel.

    Evidence such as company books, firearms and grenades was seized. The accused is arguing that the search warrant used to seize the evidence was void as it was served after 10 days had passed. They also argue that the motor vehicle seized is unrelated to the libel charge.

    Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Region III Branch 16, City of San Fernando PEOPLE OF THE

    PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, - versus DONG ZHUO, Accused. x ---------------------------------------------- x MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE UNLAWFULLY SEIZED AND RETURN OF PROPERTY SEIZED The ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully moves for the suppression of objects seized on 23 July 2012, pursuant to Search Warrant No. 6699 issued by this Honorable Court dated 12 July 2012, based on the following considerations: 1. Search Warrant No. 6699 was served on the 11th day and is, thus, void. 2. The motor vehicle seized does not fall within the property that may lawfully be seized. Discussion [1] Search Warrant No. 1122 was served on the 11th day and is, thus, 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 and that thereafter, it shall be void. 2. Search Warrant No. 1122 is dated 12 July 2012. It was served on the accused on 23 July 2012, the 11th day from its date; this is certified to by the Sworn Inventory and Return executed by Major Liu Bei, the leader of the searching team (a copy of which is already part of the records). A search was made on the same day, 23 July 2012; pursuant to said search, certain objects were seized and delivered to the court. Under the law, the Search Warrant is void. 3. No valid seizure may be made under a void warrant. For this reason, the following objects must be suppressed: i. Company Books and Ledgers ii. 12 Military-grade M-16 Assault Rifles with 12 Bullet Cartridges iii. Two (2) Glock-16 Handguns with Two (2) Bullet Cartridges iv. Three (3) Military-grade Fragmentation grenades [2] The motor vehicle seized does not fall within the property that may lawfully be seized. Criminal Case No. 00045 For: Libel

    4. On the occasion of the search, the searching party also seized accuseds green Jaguar XJE with license plate, No. 1", allegedly for being subject of the offense. Thereafter, it was impounded and kept at the PNP Motor Pool. 5. The motor vehicle cannot be subject of the offense as accused is charged with libel. There is no relation between the motor vehicle and libel. 6. Moreover, the motor vehicle is not mala prohibita that would justify a seizure thereof; neither could there be a seizure of evidence in plain view. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that all objects seized under the void Search Warrant No. 6699 be declared INADMISSIBLE under the exclusionary rule in Article III, section 3(2) in relation to Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Furthermore, it is prayed that the White Nissan Patrol Safari Edition with license plate LOL 999" be immediately returned to the accused. City of San Fernando; 25 July 2012. (Sgd.) Atty. Rommelito Francisco E. Macarayo Counsel for Accused 13-69 Barracks Building, Marikina IBP NO. 87123-7/19/12-AC PTR NO. 669913/21/12-AC Roll No. 99998 MCLE Exempt (Admitted to the bar: April 6, 2012)

    NOTICE OF HEARING Atty. Ezekiel Razon Counsel for the Plaintiff 12-26 Marina Arcade, Mabalacat City Greetings: Please take notice that the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence and Return of Property Seized shall be submitted for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on Thursday, July 25, at 10 AM or as soon as counsel and matter may be heard.

    Atty. Rommelito Francisco E. Macarayo

    EXPLANATION The foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence and Return of Property Seized is being filed with this Honorable Court and served on the opposing counsel by registered mail in view of the impracticability of personal filing and service due to distance considering that the office of this Honorable Court is at the City of San Fernando and that of the opposing counsel is at Mabalacat City, while undersigned counsel holds office in Marikina.

    Atty. Rommelito Francisco E. Macarayo

    COPY FURNISHED:

    Atty. Ezekiel Razon Counsel for the Plaintiff 12-26 Marina Arcade, Mabalacat City

    You might also like