Carillo files motion vs. search warrant used in CIDG raid

City Councilor Gerardo Carillo, who is also a lawyer of one of the boutiques raided by the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group for allegedly selling fake beauty products, is questioning the legality of the raid.

Carillo, who represents boutique owner John Sanchez, yesterday filed a motion to quash the search warrant earlier issued by the court against Yu Lan Store based on three grounds. Carillo said that the raid was invalid because the search warrant was served in a wrong store and in a different address.

Carillo said the CIDG operation also violated the law because no witness was present.

According to Carillo, the search warrant issued by Judge Ramon Daomilas on August 3 was against Yu Lan Store, whose address is on Colon and Pelaez streets. But the place raided by CIDG was Julian Cosmetics Traders located along Vicente Gullas and Manalili streets.

The security guards aided policemen who conducted the search but the same guards also signed as witnesses, a procedure that Carillo said was not allowed under Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Courts.

Carillo pointed out that policemen who applied for the search warrant did not have personal knowledge on the offense of the store, which is required under the rules.

CIDG officials admitted during the investigation conducted by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines that they were not able to supply the names of the stores and their location as they relied only on the statements of the private complainants.

Carillo was earlier investigated by the IBP because of his alleged intervention in the police operation. The IBP, however, cleared him of any irregularity.

The IBP fact-finding inquiry found out that Carillo's presence during the raid was not considered an intervention because he was there to protect the rights of his clients. Besides, Carillo did not introduce himself as a city councilor.

Carillo wanted the court to quash the search warrant because it was invalid and that the beauty products seized during the operation should not be admitted as evidence against his client. - Fred P. Languido