Central Bank vs. Morfe
2
CENTRAL BANK v. MORFE FACTS: First Mutual Savings and Loan Organization encourage savings among its members and extend financial assistance thru loans. Central bank said that the Organization and others with similar nature are banking institutions and that the Org have never been authorized. CB applied for SW because of the Org’s illegal receipt of deposits of money for deposit, disbursements… without compliance with RA 337. The SW includes articles such as book of original entry…and others. They said that the SW is general in its terms and that the use of the word “and others” permits the unreasonable search and seizure of documents which have no relation to any specific criminal act. HELD: SW is upheld. - Depending on the circumstances, while in one instance the particular wording of the warrant may make it assume the character of a general warrant, in another context it may be considered perfectly alright. - SW only for one offense, if issued for more than two, it is void. Scatter shot warrant. - In illegal possession of shabu, marijuana, paraphernalia- one SW ok! - SW may be partially void - Undetermined amount of marijuana ok! - Purpose of Particularity of Description: 1. Readily identify the items to be seized, thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items 2. Leave officers with no discretion regarding articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizure - Not required that technical precision of description be required
-
Upload
arlando-g-arlando -
Category
Documents
-
view
46 -
download
3
description
Law on Credit Transactions Cases
Transcript of Central Bank vs. Morfe
CENTRAL BANK v. MORFE
FACTS: First Mutual Savings and Loan Organization encourage savings among its members and extend financial assistance thru loans. Central bank said that the Organization and others with similar nature are banking institutions and that the Org have never been authorized. CB applied for SW because of the Org’s illegal receipt of deposits of money for deposit, disbursements…without compliance with RA 337. The SW includes articles such as book of original entry…and others. They said that the SW is general in its terms and that the use of the word “and others” permits the unreasonable search and seizure of documents which have no relation to any specific criminal act.
HELD: SW is upheld.
- Depending on the circumstances, while in one instance the particular wording of the warrant may make it assume the character of a general warrant, in another context it may be considered perfectly alright.
- SW only for one offense, if issued for more than two, it is void. Scatter shot warrant.
- In illegal possession of shabu, marijuana, paraphernalia- one SW ok!
- SW may be partially void
- Undetermined amount of marijuana ok!
- Purpose of Particularity of Description:
1. Readily identify the items to be seized, thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items2. Leave officers with no discretion regarding articles to be seized and thus prevent
unreasonable searches and seizure
- Not required that technical precision of description be required
- “narcotics paraphernalia”, “any and all narcotics”, and “a quantity of loose heroin”- ok!
- “and the like”- not necessarily general warrant
- Where should the requisite description appear- in the caption or body of the warrant? Body sufficient.
- What if there’s discrepancy between the address in the caption and in the body? Not sufficient to invalidate. It is sufficient as long as you can identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community.
