Nolasco, et al vs. Paño
G.R. No. L-69803
October 8, 1985
Facts:
The present case was subject for resolution.
Supreme Court held in a criminal case that the arrest of the petitioners was illegal, annulling the decision of respondent Judge Paño, and that the seizure of the items by virtue of the warrant by the same respondent judge are inadmissible as evidence in the Subversive Documents case. However the Court held that the items were to be retained in case it would be used as evidence in a separate criminal case pending before the Special Military Commission No.1, returning the rest which are determined irrelevant by petitioner.
Petitioners questioned the portion of the decision regarding the retention of the properties seized. One of the petitioners also assailed the respondent’s claim that the search was incidental to her arrest for the crime of rebellion.
Issue:
Whether or not some of the properties seized may be introduced as evidence in a separate criminal case.
Held:
The Court ruled the propriety of the declaration of the arrest and search as null and void. It was held that the warrant was one of a general warrant issued in gross violation of the constitutional mandate against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Bill of rights also orders the absolute exclusion of all illegally obtained evidence: "Any evidence obtained in violation of this . . . section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding" (Sec. 4[2]).
All the articles thus seized fall under the exclusionary rule totally and unqualifiedly and cannot be used against any of the three petitioners, as held in the recent case of Galman vs. Pamaran (G.R. Nos. 71208-09, August 30, 1985).
Since the search was not an incident of an arrest as it was in fact made under a void general warrant, the seizure of documents could not be justified as an incident of an arrest
The Court ordered the return of all seized items to petitioners.
