[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
463 views1 page

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

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.

Uploaded by

Man2x Salomon
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
463 views1 page

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

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.

Uploaded by

Man2x Salomon
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

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