People vs Veloso [G.R. No. L-23051] Case Digest

 

People vs Veloso

G.R. No. L-23051

 

Facts:

The police of Manila had reliable information that the Parliamentary Club was nothing more than a gambling house. Detective Andres Geronimo applied for, and obtained a search warrant from Judge Garduño of the municipal court.  They found the doors to the premises closed and barred. 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. Veloso insisting in his refusal to submit to the search.

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, cardboards, and chips were taken from his pockets.

In the municipal court of the City of Manila, the persons arrest in the raid were accused of gambling. All of them were eventually acquitted in the Court of First Instance for lack of proof, with the sole exception of Veloso, who was found guilty of maintaining a gambling house.

The defense, contended that since the name of Veloso did not appear in the search warrant, but instead the pseudonym John Doe was used, Veloso had a legal right to resist the police by force.

 

Issue:

Whether or not Veloso had a legal right to resist the police force because his name was not the one stipulated in the search warrant but a pseudonym John Doe.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

John Doe' Warrants. It follows, on principle, from what has already been said regarding the essential requirements of warrants for the apprehension of persons accused, and about blank warrants, that 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 (description of person) 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.

The description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person upon whom the warrant is to be served. 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.