Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Motion For Release of Seized Property
Motion For Release of Seized Property
Whenever police act illegally - whatever their purpose our society suffers. Even if the tasks of the police are made
somewhat more difficult by adherence to lawful procedures, it
would be a small price to pay for the preservation of individual
liberty. If it is conceded that law enforcement is not as effective
as it could be, it is fallacious to argue that it would necessarily
be improved if short cut methods were approved. Associate
Justice Lucas Bersamin1
The ACCUSED Ronnie Yecla, through the undersigned
counsel, most respectfully moves for the issuance of an Order
to Release of the motorized tricycle wrongfully seized by the
PNP Kalibo police on August 28, 2014, based on the following
considerations:
1) The property seized belongs to a third person not
involved in, much less liable for the above-captioned
case, in violation of the second paragraph of Article 45,
Revised Penal Code;
2) The property was seized neither by virtue of a valid
search warrant, nor as an incident to a lawful
warrantless arrest;
Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin in G.R. No. 182010, Esquillo V. People of the Philippines
at 4PM on August 28, 2014. Since then, the tricycle has been
detained at Kalibo PNP.
1.5. No receipt of property seized was given to the
accused or any of his family. The seized item was not
inventoried. PO3 Pura who executed the Certification was not
present during said seizure.
Discussion
2.
The seizure was done in
violation of Article 45 of the
Revised Penal Code.
2.1. Second paragraph of Article 45 provides:
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall
be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
Government, unless they be property of a third
person not liable for the offense...xxx (underscoring
added)
2.2. The motorized tricycle seized is owned and
registered in the name of Adove A. Dalida Sr.3 Said owner is
not in any way involved in the case, much less liable for the
offense charged. Hence, his tricycle is exempt from seizure.
Moreover, the motor vehicle is not a mala in se article that
would justify seizure thereof.
3.
The property was seized
neither by virtue of a valid
search warrant, nor as an
incident of a warrantless arrest.
3.1. There was no search warrant or warrant of arrest
issued against the accused. A warrantless arrest of the accused
was made allegedly in flagrante delicto. The seizure of the
tricycle, however, was not done on the occasion of the
warrantless arrest but several hours afterwards as indicated in
the Certification of PO3 Pura.
(Copy of the O.R. and C.R. of the motorized tricycle is hereto attached as
Annex 1).
3
4.
The procedure for seizure
of property was not observed.
4.1. No receipt for property seized was issued by the
confiscating officers. No proper inventory of the seized property
was made by them. Consequently, they also failed to secure a
Certification of Orderly Search from the owner or custodian of
the property. Moreover, PO3 Ephraem S. Pura Jr. who executed
a Certification in relation to the seizure was not present during
the seizure.
5.
The property seized is not
listed as evidence in the case.
5.1. Objects which are not illegal per se which may be
used as evidence in a case are kept in the custody of the
Court to preserve its condition and to secure its presentation
when necessary. In this case, the seized tricycle does not need
to be presented in court as evidence nor is there anything in its
condition that needs to be preserved through confiscation.
5.2. The Information filed in this case made no mention of
the seized tricycle as evidence. In fact, the presentation of the
tricycle is immaterial to the case because the object allegedly
stolen is cement, not the tricycle itself. If the purpose was to
show how the bags were arranged in the tricycle to conceal
the excess, it is no longer possible as they were already
unloaded. They should have been photographed before the
unloading.
6.
Accused is deprived of
his Constitutional rights to
possession of property and
against unreasonable searches
and seizures.
6.1. The legal concept of Multi-Factor Balancing Test
requires officers to weigh the manner and intensity of the
interference to the right of the people, the gravity of the
crime committed, and the circumstances attending the
incident. The right to property of a person must be given more
weight under the circumstances of this case.