People v.

Veloso
GR 23051
October 20, 1925
John Doe warrant, Description Personae
FACTS:
House Representative Jose Ma. Veloso was found guilty by the CFI of the crime of resistance in
violation of Art. 252 of the Penal Code. However, he is assailing the legality of the John Doe search
warrant that was used against him.
Veloso was also the manager of the Parliamentary Club located in Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila
which was being used as a gambling house. Detective Andres Geronimo of the secret service of the
City of Manila applied for and obtained a search warrant from Judge Garduno after verification of the
fact.
Nearly fifty persons were apprehended by the police. One of them was Veloso who, after reading the
warrant presented by the police said that he was not John Doe and that the police had no right to
search the house. The Townsend said that Veloso was considered as John Doe and asked him to show
the evidence of the game after seeing that his pocket is bulging. Veloso still resisted and even injured
one of the policemen. Eventually, he was still apprehended.
The persons arrested in the raid were accused of gambling but all of them were eventually acquitted
for lack of proof with the sole exception of Veloso who was found guilty maintaining the gambling
house.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the John Doe search warrant used by the police is valid
RULING:
Yes
It is undeniable that the application for the search warrant, the affidavit, and the search warrant failed
to name Jose Ma. Veloso as the person to be seized. But the affidavit and the search warrant did state
that "John Doe has illegally in his possession in the building occupied by him, and which is under his
control, namely, in the building numbered 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila, Philippine Islands,
certain devices and effects used in violation of the Gambling Law." The Organic Act requires a
particular description of the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized, and that the
warrant in this case sufficiently described the place and the gambling apparatus, and, in addition,
contained a description of the person to be seized. Under Commonwealth v. Crotty, it is invariably
recognized that the warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed party is void, "except in those cases
where it contains a description personae such as will enable the officer to identify the accused." 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.

Prepared by: Paula Christianna M. Tinio