Scribd
Upload
153 views1 page

United Laboratories Incorporated Vs Isip

The document discusses a case where a search warrant was issued to search a building suspected of manufacturing counterfeit products. During the search, items not described in the warrant were seized. The court ruled the seizure was invalid as the plain view doctrine did not apply since the state did not prove that the requirements for the doctrine were met.

Uploaded by

UST 2AA
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
153 views1 page

United Laboratories Incorporated Vs Isip

The document discusses a case where a search warrant was issued to search a building suspected of manufacturing counterfeit products. During the search, items not described in the warrant were seized. The court ruled the seizure was invalid as the plain view doctrine did not apply since the state did not prove that the requirements for the doctrine were met.

Uploaded by

UST 2AA
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

United Laboratories Incorporated vs.

Ernesto Isip And Shalimar Philippines


G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005
Nature of search warrant - A search warrant, to be valid, must particularly describe the place to
be searched and the things to be seized. The officers of the law are to seize only those things
particularly described in the search warrant.

Facts:
Armadillo Protective and Security Agency placed an asset named Charlie Rabe (Rabe) who
was renting a room in Shalimar Building located in Sta. Cruz, Manila. According to Rabe, the
building is being used to manufacture counterfeit products of Unilab particularly, Revicon
multivitamins. By virtue of such information, Besarra, Special Investigator of the NBI, filed an
application in the RTC for the issuance of a search warrant for the seizure of counterfeit Revicon
multivitamins, finished or unfinished, and the documents used in recording, manufacture and/or
importation, distribution and/or sale, or the offering for sale, sale and/or distribution of the said
vitamins. The RTC granted such application and issued a search warrant. The search warrant was
implemented by the NBI headed by Besarra, in coordination with Unilab employees. No fake
Revicon multivitamins were found; instead, they found and seized sealed boxes which when
opened, contained Disudrin and Inoflox. Ernesto Isip (Isip), the owner of Shalimar building filed
a motion to quash the search warrant. According to him, the items seized were not the items
described in the search warrant. Unilab countered that the seizure was justified by the plain view
doctrine.

Issue:
Whether the seizure of the sealed boxes is valid

Ruling:
No. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake
a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a
crime. The search is limited in scope so as not to be general or explanatory. Nothing is left to the
discretion of the officer executing the warrant. Objects, articles or papers not described in the
warrant but on plain view of the executing officer may be seized by him. However, the seizure by
the officer of objects/articles/papers not described in the warrant cannot be presumed as plain
view. The State must adduce evidence, testimonial or documentary, to prove the confluence of the
essential requirements for the doctrine to apply, namely: (a) the executing law enforcement officer
has a prior justification for an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position from which he
can view a particular order; (b) the officer must discover incriminating evidence inadvertently; and
(c) it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a
crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. It is not enough to contend that the sealed boxes
were in the plain view of the NBI agents; evidence should have been adduced to prove the
existence of all the essential requirements for the application of the plain view doctrine. In this
case, the NBI agents and Unilab did noy adduce evidence to satisfy essential requites for the plain
view doctrine to apply.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy