Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • G.R. No. 188794, September 02, 2015 Honesto Ogayon Y Diaz People of The Philippines Facts

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    302 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Ogayon had waived his right to question the legality of the search warrant used in his case. While Ogayon did not object to the search warrant during trial court proceedings, the Supreme Court found that procedural rules cannot diminish constitutional rights like the right to be free from unreasonable searches. The records did not show that the requirements for issuing a search warrant under the Rules of Court, such as examining the applicant and witnesses, were followed. The Supreme Court prioritized compliance with the safeguards for constitutional rights over procedural rules.

    Original Description:

    Ogayon v. People case digest; law files; remedial law

    Original Title

    Ogayon v. People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Ogayon had waived his right to question the legality of the search warrant used in his case. While Ogayon did not object to the search warrant during trial court proceedings, the Supreme Court found that procedural rules cannot diminish constitutional rights like the right to be free from unreasonable searches. The records did not show that the requirements for issuing a search warrant under the Rules of Court, such as examining the applicant and witnesses, were followed. The Supreme Court prioritized compliance with the safeguards for constitutional rights over procedural rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    302 views1 page

    G.R. No. 188794, September 02, 2015 Honesto Ogayon Y Diaz People of The Philippines Facts

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Ogayon had waived his right to question the legality of the search warrant used in his case. While Ogayon did not object to the search warrant during trial court proceedings, the Supreme Court found that procedural rules cannot diminish constitutional rights like the right to be free from unreasonable searches. The records did not show that the requirements for issuing a search warrant under the Rules of Court, such as examining the applicant and witnesses, were followed. The Supreme Court prioritized compliance with the safeguards for constitutional rights over procedural rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    188794, September 02, 2015

    HONESTO OGAYON Y DIAZ, Petitioner, v. 


    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

    FACTS:
    Two Informations were filed against Honesto Ogayon for violations of RA
    9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) where drug paraphernalia
    and plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” were
    found in the possession of Ogayon.
    Relying on the presumption of regularity, the RTC rejected Ogayon’s frame-
    up defense. The RTC rendered a joint judgment convicting Ogayon of the two
    criminal charges against him.
    Ogayon appealed to the CA. This time, he questioned the validity of the
    search warrant, claiming it was improperly issued. He argued that the search
    warrant was defective for lack of transcript showing that the issuing judge
    conducted an examination of the applicant for search warrant and his witnesses.
    Although the CA found no evidence in the records showing compliance with
    this requirement, it nevertheless upheld the search warrant’s validity due to
    Ogayon’s failure to make a timely objection against the warrant during the trial.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not he CA erred in finding that Ogayon had waived his right to
    question the legality of the search warrant.

    RATIO DECIDENDI:
    Yes. The CA erred in finding that Ogayon had waived his right to question
    the legality of the search warrant.
    Section 14, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides the manner to quash a
    search warrant or to suppress evidence obtained thereby. — A motion to quash a
    search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and
    acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. If no criminal
    action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court that
    issued the search warrant. However, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a
    criminal case is subsequently filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by
    the latter court,
    The Court found the CA's casual treatment of a fundamental right
    distressing. It prioritized compliance with a procedural rule over compliance with
    the safeguards for a constitutional right. Procedural rules can neither diminish nor
    modify substantial rights; their non-compliance should therefore not serve to
    validate a warrant that was issued in disregard of the constitutional requirements. 

    You might also like