Practice question
A properly issued warrant directs officers to search for identified stolen tools and bring them before the court. The officer claims the warrant entitles him personally to keep the tools as compensation. Is that claim consistent with the warrant's nature?
- No; the process commands production before the court and does not personally award the property to the officer
- Yes; seizure transfers ownership to the executing officer
- Yes; search warrants are salary instruments
- Yes; the complainant may secretly authorize retention as pay
- No; therefore the officer must destroy all seized tools
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html — Rules 120 §§4–6, 121 §§1–6, 122 §§1–3,6,11, and 126 §§1,3–5; read appellate periods with Rodriguez and current appellate routes.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/may1994/gr_104879_1994.html — Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104879, May 6, 1994, EN BANC MAIN decision (search warrant as special criminal process, not the criminal action); territorial rules governed by current Rule 126.
- https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html — 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2 (judicial probable cause and particularity).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.