PEOPLE VS VELOSO48 PHIL. 169 (1925)MALCOLM, Facts: -In May, 1923, the building located at No.

124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila, was used by an organization known as the Parliamentary Club. Jose Ma. Veloso was at that time a member of the House of Representative of the Philippine Legislature. He was also the manager of the club. -The police of Manila had reliable information that the so-called Parliamentary Club was nothing more than a gambling house. Indeed, on May 19, 1923, J. F. Townsend, the chief of the gambling squad, had been to the club and verified this fact. As a result, on May 25, 1923, Detective Andres Geronimo of the secret service of the City of Manila, applied for, and obtained a search warrant from Judge Garduo of the municipal court. Thus provided, the police attempted to raid the Parliamentary Club a little after three in the afternoon of the date above- mentioned. They found the doors to the premises closed and barred. Accordingly, one band of police including policeman Rosacker, ascended a telephone pole, so as to enter a window of the house. Other policemen, headed by Townsend, broke in the outer door. -Once inside the Parliamentary Club, nearly fifty persons were apprehended by the police. One of them was the defendant Veloso. Veloso asked Townsend what he wanted, and the latter showed him the search warrant. Veloso read it and told Townsend that he was Representative Veloso and not John Doe, and that the police had no right to search the house. Townsend answered that Veloso was considered as John Doe.As Veloso's pocket was bulging, as if it contained gambling utensils, Townsend required Veloso to show him the evidence of the game. About five minutes was consumed in conversation between the policemen and the accused the policemen insisting on searching Veloso, and Veloso insisting in his refusal to submit to the search. -At last the patience of the officers was exhausted. So policeman Rosacker took hold of Veloso only to meet with his resistance. Veloso bit Rosacker in the right forearm, and gave him a blow in another part of the body, which injured the policeman quite severely. Through the combined efforts of Townsend and Rosacker, Veloso was finally laid down on the floor, and long sheets of paper, of reglas de monte, cards,card boards, and chips were taken from his pockets. -All of the persons arrested were searched and then conducted to the patrol wagons. Veloso again refused to obey and shouted offensive epithets against the police department. It was necessary for the policemen to conduct him downstairs. At the door, Veloso resisted so tenaciously that three policemen were needed to place him in the patrol wagon. Issue: WON the search warrant and the arrest of Veloso was valid. Ruling: Yes. It is provided, among other things, in the Philippine Code on Criminal Procedure that a search warrant shall not issue except for probable cause and upon application supported by oath particularly describing the place to be searched

and the person of thing to be seized. The name and description of the accused should be inserted in the body of the warrant and where the name is unknown there must be such a description of the person accused as will enable the officer to identify him when found. A warrant for the apprehension of a person whose true name is unknown, by the name of "John Doe" or" Richard Roe," "whose other or true name in unknown," is void, without other and further descriptions of the person to be apprehended, and such warrant will not justify the officer in acting under it. Such a warrant must, in addition, contain the best descriptio personae possible to be obtained of the person or persons to be apprehended, and this description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person or persons upon whom the warrant is to be served; and should state his personal appearance and peculiarities, give his occupation and place of residence, and any other circumstances by means of which he can be identified. In the first place, the affidavit for the search warrant and the search warrant itself described the building to be searched as "the building No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila, Philippine Islands." This, without doubt, was a sufficient designation of the premises to be searched. As the search warrant stated that John Doe had gambling apparatus in his possession in the building occupied by him at No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila, and as this John Doe was Jose Ma. Veloso, the manager of the club, the police could identify John Doe as Jose Ma. Veloso without difficulty. PANGANDAMAN VS. CASAR FACTS: A shooting incident occurred which left at least five persons dead and two others wounded. What in fact transpired is still unclear. A complaint was filed and testimonies by witnesses were heard. T h e r e a f t e r , r e s p o n d e n t J u d g e approved the complaint and issued the warrant of arrest against fourteen (14) petitioners as named by the witnesses and fifty (50) John Does. A ex parte motion for reconsideration was filed seeking the recall of the warrant of arrest on the ground that the Judges initial investigation had been hasty and manifestly haphazard. The Judge denied the motion. ISSUES: Whether or not the warrant of arrests issued against the petitioners were valid. Whether or not court warrant of arrest for the fifty (50) John Does valid. HELD: Supreme Court held that warrant of arrests as to the petitioners were valid. While the warrant of against the fifty (50) John Does was voided. RATIONALE: The warrant of arrests as to the petitioners were valid. Such issuance having been ordered after proceedings and to which no irregularity has been shown to attach, in which the Judge found sufficient cause for petitioners to answer the crime complained. However, as said warrant of arrest against fifty (50) John does is not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would identify. It is of the nature of a general warrant, one of a class of writs long proscribed as

unconstitutional. Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized. Therefore, the warrant must as regards its unidentified subjects be voided.

PEOPLE V. BURGOS - 144 SCRA 1 FACTS: Due to an information given by a person, who allegedly was being forcibly recruited by accused to the NPA, the members of the Constabulary went to the house of accused, asked about his firearm and documents connected to subversive activities. Accused pointed to where his firearm was as well as his other documents allegedly. HELD: The right of the person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure of his body and any deprivation of liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. The statute or rule, which allows exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest is strictly construed. Any exception must clearly fall within the situations when securing a warrant would be absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided by the Rule. We cannot liberally construe the rule on arrests without warrant or extend its application beyond the cases specifically provided by law. To do so would infringe upon personal liberty and set back a basic right so often violated and so deserving of full protection.