List of Crim Pro Cases - Searches and Seizures Remedial Law

8/13/2019 List of Crim Pro Cases - Searches and Seizures Remedial Law

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/list-of-crim-pro-cases-searches-and-seizures-remedial-law 1/46

ASIAN SURETY and INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs.HON. JOSE HERRERA, as Judge, City Court of Mania, N!I Agent CE"SO J. #O"ETA, JR. and MANUE"CUARESMA, respondents. $.R. No. "%&'&(& )e*e+er &-, /0(

ES$UERRA, J.:

Petition to quash and annul a search warrant issued by respondent Judge Jose Herrera of the City Court of Manila, and to commandrespondents to return immediately the documents, papers, receipts and records alleged to have been illegally seized thereunder byagents of the ational !ureau of "nvestigation #!"$ led by respondent Celso %oleta, Jr.

&n &ctober '(, )*+, respondent Judge Herrera, upon the sworn application of !" agent Celso %oleta, Jr. supported by thedeposition of his witness, Manuel Cuaresma, issued a search warrant in connection with an undoc-eted criminal case for estafa,

falsification, insurance fraud, and ta evasion, against the /sian 0urety and "nsurance Co., a corporation duly organized and eistingunder the laws of the Philippines, with principal office at 1oom '22 1epublic 0upermar-et !ldg., 1izal /venue, Manila. 3he searchwarrant is couched in the following language4

"t appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned, after eamining under oath NBI Agent Celso J. Zoleta, Jr. and hiswitness Manuel Cuaresma that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that Mr. William Li Yao or hisemployees has5have in his5their control in premises No. 2nd Floor Repuli! "upermar#et Building, in Ri$al

A%enue district of 0ta. Cruz, Manila, property #0ub6ect of the offense7 stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits ofthe offense used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense$ should be seized and brought to theundersigned.

8ou are hereby commanded to ma-e an immediate search at any time in the 99999 of the premises above9describedand forthwith seize and ta-e possession of the following personal property to wit4 :ire 1egisters, ;oss !ordereau, /d6usters 1eport including subrogation receipt and proof of loss, ;oss 1egisters, !oo-s of /ccounts, including cashreceipts and disbursements and general ledger, chec- vouchers, income ta returns, and other papers !onne!tedt&ere'it& ... for the years ()*( to ()*+ to be dealt with as the law directs.

/rmed with the search warrant %oleta and other agents assigned to the /nti9graft <ivision of the !" entered the premises of the1epublic 0upermar-et !uilding and served the search warrant upon /tty. /lidio of the insurance company, in the presence of Mr.=illiam ;i 8ao, president and chairman of the board of directors of the insurance firm. /fter the search they seized and carried awaytwo #'$ carloads of documents, papers and receipts.

Petitioner assails the validity of the search warrant, claiming that it was issued in contravention of the eplicit provisions of theConstitution and the 1ules of Court, particularly 0ection ), of /rt. """ of the )*> Constitution, now 0ection >, of /rt. "? of the newConstitution, and 0ections >, , @ and )2 of 1ule )'+ of the 1ules of Court, hereunder quoted for convenience of reference, viz4

0ec. > A 3he rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonablesearches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause to be determined bythe 6udge after eamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnessed he may produce, andparticularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons, or things to be seized.B #/rt. "?, 0ection >, ewConstitution$

0ec. > A Reuisites -or issuing sear!& 'arrant A / search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause inconnection with one specific offense to be determined by the 6udge or 6ustice of the peace after eamination underoath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to besearched and the persons or things to be seized.

o search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense. #0ec. >, 1ule )'+, 1ules of Court$

0ec. A Issuan!e and -orm o- sear!& 'arrant A "f the 6udge or 6ustice of the peace is thereupon satisfied of theeistence of facts upon which the application is based, or that there is probable cause to believe that they eist, hemust issue the warrant in the form prescribed by these rules. #0ec. , 1ule )'+$

0ec. @ A ime o- ma#ing sear!& A 3he warrant must direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavitasserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may beinserted that it be served at any time of the night or day. #0ec. @, 1ule )'+$

0ec. )2 Re!eipt -or propert/ sei$ed . A 3he officer seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt forthe same to the person on whom or in whose possession it was found, or in the absence of any person, must, in thepresence of at least one witness, leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property. #0ec. )2, 1ule)'+$ .

B&f all the rights of a citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personalsecurity, and that involves the eemption of his private affairs, boo-s, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. =hile thepower to search and seize is necessary to the public welfare, still it must be eercised and the law enforced without transgressing theconstitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to 6ustify indifference to the basicprinciples of government #People v. lias, )D( .. D('$.B

".

"n the case at bar, the search warrant was issued for four separate and distinct offenses of 4 #)$ estafa, #'$ falsification, #>$ ta evasionand #D$ insurance fraud, in contravention of the eplicit command of 0ection >, 1ule )'+, of the 1ules providing that4 Bno search warrantshall issue for more than one specific offense.B 3he aforequoted provision, which is found in the last paragraph of the same section, issomething new. B3here is no precedent on this amendment A prohibition against the issuance of a search warrant for more than onespecific offense A either in the /merican boo-s on Criminal procedure or in /merican decisions.B & "t was applied in the celebratedcase of 0arr/ ". "tone&ill %. "e!retar/ o- Justi!e ( where this Court said4

3o uphold the validity of the warrants in question would be to wipe out completely one of the most fundamental rightsguaranteed in our Constitution, for it would place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication andcorrespondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers. 3his is precisely the evil sought tobe remedied by the constitutional provision abovequoted A to outlaw the so9called general warrants. "t is not difficultto imagine what would happen in times of -een political strife, when the party in power feels that the minority is li-elyto wrest it, even though by legal means.

0uch is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection with the disputed search warrants, that thisCourt deemed it fit to amend section > of 1ule )'' of the former 1ules of Court by providing in its counterpart, underthe 1evised 1ules of Court, that a search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with onespecific offense. ot satisfied with this qualification, the court added thereto a paragraph, directing that no searchwarrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.



"".

Petitioner li-ewise contests the validity of the search warrant on the ground that it authorized the search and seizures of personalproperties so vaguely described and not particularized, thereby infringing the constitutional mandate requiring particular description ofthe place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. "t also assails the noncompliance with the above9requirement asli-ewise openly violative of 0ection ' of 1ule )'+ which provides4

0C. '. / search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of the following personal property4

#a$ Property sub6ect of the offense7

#b$ Property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense7 and

#c$ Property used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

3he search warrant herein involved reads in part4 B... property #0ub6ect of the offense, stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of theoffense used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense$ should be seized and brought to the undersigned.B 3heclaim of respondents that by not cancelling the description of one or two of the classes of property contained in the form when notapplicable to the properties sought to be seized, the respondent 6udge intended the search to apply to all the three classes of property.3his is a patent impossibility because the description of the property to be searched and seized, viz4 :ire 1egisters, ;oss !ordereau, /d6usters 1eport, including subrogation receipts and proof of loss, ;oss 1egisters, !oo-s of /ccounts including cash receipts anddisbursements and general ledger, etc. and the offenses alleged to have been committed by the corporation to wit4 estafa, falsification,ta evasion and insurance fraud, render it impossible for Es to see how the above9described property can simultaneously becontraband goods, stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of one and the same offense. =hat is plain and clear is the factthat the respondent Judge made no attempt to determine whether the property he authorized to be searched and seized pertainsspecifically to any one of the three classes of personal property that may be searched and seized under a search warrant under 1ule)'+, 0ec. ' of the 1ules. 3he respondent Judge simply authorized search and seizure under an omnibus description of the personalproperties to be seized. !ecause of this all embracing description which includes all conceivable records of petitioner corporation, which

if seized #as it was really seized in the case at bar$, could possibly paralyze its business, 1

petitioner in several motions, filed for earlyresolution of this case, manifested that the seizure of 3=& carloads of their papers has paralyzed their business to the grave pre6udiceof not only the company, its wor-ers, agents, employees but also of its numerous insured and beneficiaries of bonds issued by it,including the government itself, and of the general public. ' /nd correlating the same to the charges for which the warrant was issued,=e have before Es the infamous general warrants of old. "n the case of 1/ &e/tin, et al., %. 3illareal , D' Phil. @*+, cited with approvalin the !ache case, supra, =e had occasion to eplain the purpose of the requirement that the warrant should particularly describe theplace to be searched and the things to be seized, to wit4

B... !oth the Jones ;aw #sec. >$ and Feneral &rders o. @ #sec. *($ specifically require that a search warrant shouldparticularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. 3he evident purpose and intent of thisrequirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant Ato leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end thatBunreasonable searches and seizuresB may not be made. 3hat this is the correct interpretation of this constitutionalprovision is borne out by /merican authorities.B

3he purpose as thus eplained could, surely and effectively, be defeated under the search warrant issued in this case.

""".

Moreover, as contended by petitioner, respondents in li-e manner transgressed 0ection )2 of 1ule )'+ of the 1ules for failure to give adetailed receipt of the things seized. Foing over the receipts #/nnees B!B, B!9)B, !9'B, B!9>B and B!9DB of the Petition$ issued, =efound the following4 one bordereau of reinsurance, @ fire registers, ) marine register, four annual statements, folders described only as!undle gm9) red folders7 bundle )(9'' big carton folders7 folders of various sizes, etc., without stating therein the nature and -ind ofdocuments contained in the folders of which there were about a thousand of them that were seized. "n the seizure of two carloads ofdocuments and other papers, the possibility that the respondents too- away private papers of the petitioner, in violation of hisconstitutional rights, is not remote, for the !" agents virtually had a field day with the broad and unlimited search warrant issued byrespondent Judge as their passport.

"?.

3he search warrant violated the specific in6unctions of 0ection @ of 1ule )'+. 2 /nne B/B of the Petition which is the search warrant inquestion left blan- the BtimeB for ma-ing search, while actual search was conducted in the evening of &ctober '(, )*+, at (4>2 p.m.,

until the wee hours of the morning of &ctober '@, )*+, thus causing untold inconveniences to petitioners herein. /uthorities 0

are of theview that where a search is to be made during the night time, the authority for eecuting the same at that time should appear in thedirective on the face of the warrant.

"n their Memorandum 3 respondents, relying on the case of Mon!ado %. 4eoples Court #@2 Phil. )$, argued4

ven assuming that the search warrant in question is null and void, the illegality thereof would not render theincriminating documents inadmissible in evidence.

3his Court has reverted to the old rule and abandoned the Moncado ruling #0tonehill case, supra$. Most common law 6urisdictions havealready given up this approach and eventually adopted the eclusionary rule, realizing that this is the only practical means of enforcingthe constitutional in6unction against unreasonable searches and seizures. 3hus the 0upreme Court of the Enited 0tates declared4 /

"f letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of anoffense the protection of the Dth /mendment, declaring his right to be secured against such searches and seizures isof no value, and so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stric-en from the Constitution. 3heefforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praise9worthy as they are, are not to be aidedby the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in theirembodiment in the fundamental law of the land.

Moreover, the criminal charges filed by the !" have all been dismissed and5or dropped by the Court or by the office of the City :iscalof Manila in )*+@, as manifested in the petition filed by petitioner dated &ctober 'D, )*(', for early resolution of this case.

?.

"t has li-ewise been observed that the offenses alleged too- place from )*+) to )*+D, and the application for search warrant was madeon &ctober '(, )*+. 3he time of the application is so far remote in time as to ma-e the probable cause of doubtful veracity and thewarrant vitally defective. 3hus Mr. Joseph ?aron, an eminent authority on 0earches, 0eizures and "mmunities, has this to say on thispoint4



:rom the eamination of the several cases touching upon this sub6ect, the following general rules are said to apply toaffidavits for search warrants4

#)$

#'$ 0uch statement as to the time of the alleged offense must be clear and definite and must not e too remote -romt&e time o- t&e ma#ing o- t&e a--ida%it and issuan!e o- t&e sear!& 'arrant .

#>$ 3here is no rigid rule for determining whether the stated time of observation of the offense is too remote from thetime when the affidavit is made or the search warrant issued, but, generall/ spea#ing, a lapse o- time o- more t&ant&ree 'ee#s 'ill e &eld not to in%alidate t&e sear!& 'arrant '&ile a lapse o- -our 'ee#s 'ill e &eld to e so.

/ good and practical rule of thumb to measure the nearness of time given in the affidavit as to the date of the allegedoffense, and the time of ma-ing the affidavit is thus epressed4 &e nearer t&e time at '&i!& t&e oser%ation o- t&eo--ense is alleged to &a%e een made, t&e more reasonale t&e !on!lusion o- estalis&ment o- proale !ause.Gmphasis &urs

P1M"00 C&0"<1<, petition is hereby granted7 the search warrant of &ctober '(, )*+, is nullified and set aside, and therespondents are hereby ordered to return immediately all documents, papers and other ob6ects seized or ta-en thereunder. =ithoutcosts.

MA"A"OAN 4 CA 56INE#A7 '>' 0C1/ 'D* 1F/;/<&7 May +, )**D

/3E1

Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of C/.

:/C30

9 )st ;t. /bsalon ?. 0alboro of the C/PC&M orthern 0ector #now Central 0ector$ filed with the 1egional 3rial Court of Ialoo-an Cityan application for search warrant. 3he search warrant was sought for in connection with an alleged violation of P.<. )@++ #"llegalPossession of :irearms and /mmunitions$ perpetrated at o. ' ewport 0t., corner Marlboro 0t., :airview, E%& C"38. &n March'>, )**2, respondent 13C Judge of I/;&&I/ C"38 issued 0earch =arrant o. *9*2.

9 &n the same day, at around '4>2 p.m., members of the C/PC&M, armed with sub6ect search warrant, proceeded to the situs of theoffense alluded to, where a labor seminar of the cumenical "nstitute for ;abor ducation and 1esearch #";1$ was then ta-ing place. /ccording to C/PC&MKs K"nventory of Property 0eized,K firearms, eplosive materials and subversive documents, among others, wereseized and ta-en during the search. /nd all the sity9one #+)$ persons found within the premises searched were brought to CampIaringal, uezon City but most of them were later released, with the eception of the herein petitioners, ";1 "nstructors, who wereindicted for violation of P.<. )@++ in Criminal Case o. 9*29))(( before !ranch @@ of the 1egional 3rial Court of uezon City,

presided over by respondent Judge 3irso <.C. ?elasco.

9 &n July )2, )**2, petitioners presented a KMotion for Consolidation, uashal of 0earch =arrant and :or the 0uppression of /ll"llegally /cquired videnceK before the uezon City court7 and a K0upplemental Motion to the Motion for Consolidation, uashal of0earch =arrant and clusion of evidence "llegally &btainedK.

9 &n 0eptember '), )**2, the respondent uezon City Judge issued the challenged order, consolidating sub6ect cases but denying theprayer for the quashal of the search warrant under attac-, the validity of which warrant was upheld7 opining that the same falls underthe category of =rits and Processes, within the contemplation of paragraphs >#b$ of the "nterim 1ules and Fuidelines, and can beserve not only within the territorial 6urisdiction of the issuing court but anywhere in the 6udicial region of the issuing court #ationalCapital Judicial 1egion$.

9 1espondent Court of /ppeals rendered 6udgment, in effect affirming that of the trial court, by denying due course to the petition forcertiorari and lifting the temporary restraining order it had issued on ovember '*, )**2 in connection therewith. 3his 6udgment ofrespondent court is now impugned in and sought to be reversed through the present recourse before us.

"00E

=& a court may ta-e cognizance of an application for a search warrant in connection with an offense committed outside its territorial 6urisdiction and to issue a warrant to conduct a search on a place li-ewise outside its territorial 6urisdiction.

H;<

80

9 o law or rule imposes such a limitation on search warrants, in the same manner that no such restriction is provided for warrants ofarrest. 3he arguments of petitioners are not inferable by necessary implication from the statutory provisions which are presumed to becomplete and epressive of the intendment of the framers. / contrary interpretation on whatever pretet should not be countenanced.

9 / bit of legal history on his contestation will be helpful. 3he 6urisdictional rule heretofore was that writs and process of the so9called

inferior courts could be enforced outside the province only with the approval of the former court of first instance. Ender the Judiciary1eorganization /ct, the enforcement of such writs and processes no longer needs the approval of the regional trial court. &n the otherhand, while, formerly, writs and processes of the then courts of first instance were enforceable throughout the Philippines, under the"nterim or 3ransitional 1ules and Fuidelines, certain specified writs issued by a regional trial court are now enforceable only within its 6udicial region.

9 P1/C3"C/; C&0"<1/3"&0 3he Court cannot be blind to the fact that it is etremely difficult, as it undeniably is, to detect orelicit information regarding the eistence and location of illegally possessed or prohibited articles. 3he Court is accordingly convincedthat it should not ma-e the requisites for the apprehension of the culprits and the confiscation of such illicit items, once detected, moreonerous if not impossible by imposing further niceties of procedure or substantive rules of 6urisdiction through decisional dicta. :or thatmatter, we are unaware of any instance wherein a search warrant was struc- down on ob6ections based on territorial 6urisdiction.

9 =e do not believe that the enforcement of a search warrant issued by a court outside the territorial 6urisdiction wherein the place to besearched is located would create a constitutional question. or are we swayed by the professed apprehension that the law enforcement



authorities may resort to what could be a permutation of forum shopping, by filing an application for the warrant with a BfriendlyB court. "tneed merely be recalled that a search warrant is only a process, not an action. :urthermore, the constitutional mandate is translatedinto specifically enumerated safeguards in 1ule )'+ of the )*@ 1ules on Criminal Procedure for the issuance of a search warrant, andall these have to be observed regardless of whatever court in whichever region is importuned for or actually issues a search warrant.0aid requirements, together with the ten9day lifetime of the warrant would discourage resort to a court in another 6udicial region, notonly because of the distance but also the contingencies of travel and the danger involved, unless there are really compelling reasonsfor the authorities to do so. !esides, it does seem odd that such constitutional protests have not been made against warrants of arrestwhich are enforceable indefinitely and anywhere although they involve, not only property and privacy, but persons and liberty.

9 &n the other hand, it is a matter of 6udicial -nowledge that the authorities have to contend now and then with local and nationalcriminal syndicates of considerable power and influence, political or financial in nature, and so pervasive as to render foolhardy any

attempt to obtain a search warrant in the very locale under their sphere of control. or should we overloo- the fact that to do so willnecessitate the transportation of applicantKs witnesses to and their eamination in said places, with the attendant ris-, danger andepense. /lso, a further well9founded precaution, obviously born of eperience and verifiable data, is articulated by the court a quo, asquoted by respondent court4

B3his court is of the further belief that the possible lea-age of information which is of utmost importance in the issuance of a searchwarrant is secured #against$ where the issuing magistrate within the region does not hold court sessions in the city or municipality,within the region, where the place to be searched is located.B

9 3he foregoing situations may also have obtained and were ta-en into account in the foreign 6udicial pronouncement that, in theabsence of statutory restrictions, a 6ustice of the peace in one district of the county may issue a search warrant to be served in anotherdistrict of the county and made returnable before the 6ustice of still another district or another court having 6urisdiction to deal with thematters involved. "n the present state of our law on the matter, we find no such statutory restrictions both with respect to the courtwhich can issue the search warrant and the enforcement thereof anywhere in the Philippines.

9 &3H;00, 3& PE3 <&E!30 3& 103, 3H 0EP1M C&E13 ;/"< <&= 3H :&;;&="F P&;"C8 FE"<;"07

). 3he Court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary 6urisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and forpurposes of said case. /n application for a search warrant may be filed with another court only under etreme and compellingcircumstances that the applicant must prove to the satisfaction of the latter court which may or may not give due course to theapplication depending on the validity of the 6ustification offered for not filing the same in the court with primary 6urisdiction thereover.

'. =hen the latter court issues the search warrant, a motion to quash the same may be filed in and shall be resolved by said court,without pre6udice to any proper recourse to the appropriate higher court by the party aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing court. /llgrounds and ob6ections then available, eistent or -nown shall be raised in the original or subsequent proceedings for the quashal ofthe warrant, otherwise they shall be deemed waived.

>. =here no motion to quash the search warrant was filed in or resolved by the issuing court, the interested party may move in thecourt where the criminal case is pending for the suppression as evidence of the personal property seized under the warrant if the sameis offered therein for said purpose. 0ince two separate courts with different participations are involved in this situation, a motion toquash a search warrant and a motion to suppress evidence are alternative and not cumulative remedies. "n order to prevent forumshopping, a motion to quash shall consequently be governed by the omnibus motion rule, provided, however, that ob6ections not

available, eistent or -nown during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion tosuppress. 3he resolution of the court on the motion to suppress shall li-ewise be sub6ect to any proper remedy in the appropriate highercourt.

D. =here the court which issued the search warrant denies the motion to quash the same and is not otherwise prevented from furtherproceeding thereon, all personal property seized under the warrant shall forthwith be transmitted by it to the court wherein the criminalcase is pending, with the necessary safeguards and documentation therefor.

. 3hese guidelines shall li-ewise be observed where the same criminal offense is charged in different informations or complaints andfiled in two or more courts with concurrent original 6urisdiction over the criminal action. =hen the issue of which court will try the caseshall have been resolved, such court shall be considered as vested with primary 6urisdiction to act on applications for search warrantsincident to the criminal case.

<ispositive =H1:&1, on the foregoing premises, the instant petition is <"< and the assailed 6udgment of respondent Court of /ppeals in C/9F.1. 0P o. '>>> is hereby /::"1M<.

0P/1/3 &P""&

</?"< Gconcurring and dissenting

9 3he absence of any epress statutory provision prohibiting a court from issuing a search warrant in connection with a crime committedoutside its territorial 6urisdiction should not be construed as a grant of blan-et authority to any court of 6ustice in the country to issue asearch warrant in connection with a crime committed outside its territorial 6urisdiction. 3he ma6ority view suggests or implies that amunicipal trial court in 3awi93awi, !asilan, or !atanes can validly entertain an application for a search warrant and issue one inconnection with a crime committed in Manila. lsewise stated, all courts in the Philippines, including the municipal trial courts, canvalidly issue a search warrant in connection with a crime committed anywhere in the Philippines. 0imply put, all courts of 6ustice in thePhilippines have, for purposes of issuing a search warrant, 6urisdiction over the entire archipelago.

9 " cannot subscribe to this view since, in the first place, a search warrant is but an incident to a main case and involves the eercise ofan ancillary 6urisdiction therefore, the authority to issue it must necessarily be co9etensive with the courtKs territorial 6urisdiction. 3o holdotherwise would be to add an eception to the statutory provisions defining the territorial 6urisdiction of the various courts of the country,

which would amount to 6udicial legislation. 3he territorial 6urisdiction of the courts is determined by law, and a reading of !atasPambansa !lg. )'* discloses that the territorial 6urisdiction of regional trial courts, metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts andmunicipal circuit trial courts are confined to specific territories. "n the second place, the ma6ority view may legitimize abuses that wouldresult in the violation the civil rights of an accused or the infliction upon him of undue and unwarranted burdens and inconvenience aswhen, for instance, an accused who is a resident of !asco, !atanes, has to file a motion to quash a search warrant issued by theMetropolitan 3rial Court of Manila in connection with an offense he allegedly committed in "tbayat, !atanes.

9 or can 0tonehill vs. <io-no #'2 0C1/ >@>$ be an authoritative confirmation of the unlimited or unrestricted power of any court toissue search warrants in connection with crimes committed outside its territorial 6urisdiction. =hile it may be true that the forty9twosearch warrants involved therein were issued by several Judges 9999 specifically Judges #a$ /mado 1oan of the City Court of Manila, #b$1oman Cansino of the City Court of Manila, #c$ Hermogenes Caluag of the Court of :irst "nstance of 1izal #uezon City !ranch$, #d$ulogio Mencias of the Court of :irst "nstance of 1izal #Pasig !ranch$, and #e$ <amian Jimenez of the City Court of uezon City#:ootnote ', page >@($ 9999 there is no definite showing that the forty9two search warrants were for the searches and seizures ofproperties outside the territorial 6urisdiction of their respective courts. 3he warrants were issued against the petitioners and corporations



of which they were officers and some of the corporations enumerated in :ootnote ( have addressed in Manila and Ma-ati. #pp. >@@9@*$.1izal #which includes Ma-ati$ and uezon City both belonged to the 0eventh Judicial <istrict. 3hat nobody challenged on 6urisdictionalground the issuance of these search warrants is no argument in favor of the unlimited power of a court to issue search warrants.

9 " have serious misgivings on the ma6ority decision on the matter where another court may, because of etreme and compellingcircumstances, issue a search warrant in connection with a criminal case pending in an appropriate court. 3o illustrate this eception,the Municipal 3rial Court of /rgao, Cebu, may validly issue a warrant for the search of a house in <avao City and the seizure of anyproperty therein that may have been used in committing an offense in Manila already the sub6ect of an information filed with theMetropolitan 3rial Court of Manila. " submit that the eception violates the settled principle that even in cases of concurrent 6urisdiction,the first court which acquires 6urisdiction over the case acquires it to the eclusion of the other. #People vs. :ernando, '> 0C1/ @+(,@(2 G)*+@$. 3his being so, it is with more reason that a court which does not have concurrent 6urisdiction with the first which had ta-en

cognizance of the case does not also have the authority to issue writs or processes, including search warrants, in connection with thepending case. Moreover, since the issuance of a search warrants is an incident to a main case or is an eercise of the ancillary 6urisdiction of a court, the court where the main case is f iled has eclusive 6urisdiction over all incidents thereto and in the issuance of allwrits and processes in connection therewith. :urthermore, instead of serving the ends of 6ustice, the eception may provide room forunwarranted abuse of the 6udicial process, wrea- 6udicial havoc and procedural compleities which effective law enforcementapparently cannot 6ustify. " cannot conceive of any etreme and compelling circumstance which the court that first acquired 6urisdictionover the case cannot adequately meet within its broad powers and authority.

9 "n the light of the foregoing, and after re9eamining my original view in this case, " respectfully submit that4

). /ny court within whose territorial 6urisdiction a crime was committed may validly entertain an application for and issue a searchwarrant in connection with said crime. However, in the ational Capital Judicial 1egion, /dministrative Circulars o. )> of ) &ctober)*@, and o. )* of D /ugust )*@( must be observed.

'. /fter the criminal complaint or information is filed with the appropriate court, search warrants in connection with the crime chargedmay only be issued by said court.

NESTOR I"ANO, petitioner, vs.COURT O6 APPEA"S, HON. MA8IMIANO C. ASUNCION, Presiding Judge, Regiona Tria Court of 9ue:on City, !r. -1, HON.ANTONIO J. 6INE#A, in ;is *a<a*ity as Presiding Judge of t;e Regiona Tria Court of =aoo>an City, !r. (, and PEOP"E O6THE PHI"IPPINES, respondents. $.R. No. -/'2- May &2, //'

!E""OSI""O, J.:

"n Malaloan % . Court o- Appeals we ruled that when necessitated and 6ustified by compelling considerations of urgency, sub6ect, timeand place, a court may issue a search warrant covering a place outside its territorial 6urisdiction. 0pea-ing for the Court 5n Ban! , Mr.Justice 1egalado distinguishes the act of issuing a search warrant from the act of acquiring or assuming 6urisdiction over a case, and

eplains that a warrant is merely a process issued by a court in the eercise of its ancillary 6urisdiction and not a criminal action which itmay entertain pursuant to its original 6urisdiction. /nd since there is no law or rule which limits the issuance of search warrants to coveronly those places which are within the territorial 6urisdiction of the issuing court, this right of the court cannot be restrained or restricted.

=e invo-e this precedent in resolving the present controversy.

"n the case at bench, petitioner "lano see-s to nullify the search warrants issued by the 1egional 3rial Court of Ialoo-an City, MetroManila, ordering the search of his house and parlor in uezon City, Metro Manila, which is outside the territorial 6urisdiction of the 13Cof Ialoo-an City. He see-s refuge in Circular o. )* of this Court, or the /mended Fuidelines and Procedures on /pplicationsfor "ear!& Warrants -or Illegal 4ossession o- Firearms and 6t&er "erious Crimes filed in Metro Manila Courts and &ther Courtswith Multiple "alas, par. ) of which reads A

). /ll applications for search warrants relating to %iolation o- t&e Anti7"u%ersi%e A!t, !rimes against puli! order asde-ined in t&e Re%ised 4enal Code, as amended, illegal possession o- -irearms and8or ammunitions and %iolations o-t&e 9angerous 9rugs A!t o- ():2, as amended, s&all no longer e ra--led and s&all immediatel/ be ta-en cognizanceof and acted upon by the 5;e!uti%e Judge of the 1egional 3rial Court, Metropolitan 3rial Court, and Municipal 3rial

Court, under '&ose <urisdi!tion t&e pla!e to e sear!&ed is lo!ated . #emphasis supplied by petitioner$

/s a side issue, he laments the BarbitraryB and BdiscriminateB denial of his motion for a reinvestigation, and his subsequent motion tosuppress evidence and suspend the hearing, which according to him amount to a denial of his right to a preliminary investigationtantamount to a denial of due process. "n this regard, he invo-es =o % . Court o- Appeals. &

3he present controversy arose when the PP9/1C&M, ational Capital 1egion, through );t. Josephus /ngan, applied for a searchwarrant before the 13C of Ialoo-an City, !r. )>), to search petitioner "lanoKs house and parlor at o. ( and * Masigasig 0treet,!arangay PiLahan, uezon City, Metro Manila. /fter personally eamining );t. /ngan and his witness, Presiding Judge /ntonio J.:ineza issued 0earch =arrants os. )92)(9*) #C1$ and )92)@9*) #C1$. /s manifested in the 1eturn of 0earch =arrant filed by );t. /ngan, the following were seized during the raid4 #a$ one #)$ stic- of suspected mari6uana cigarette7 #b$ two #'$ tablets of suspectedmogadon7 #c$ one #)$ aluminum foil containing shabu residue7 #d$ one #)$ improvised tooter used in administering shabu7 and, #e$approimately fifteen #)$ grams of suspected shabu wrapped in three #>$ separate transparent plastic bags.

:orthwith, on ) :ebruary )**) an "nformation charging petitioner "lano for violation of 0ec. )+, /rt. """, 1./. +D', as amended, was filedbefore the 13C of uezon City and raffled to !r. )2D presided by respondent Judge Maimiano C. /suncion. 0ome seven #($ months

later or on ' 0eptember )**) petitioner filed a Motion for ;eave of Court to :ile 1einvestigation on the ground that Bmaterial evidencehas been discovered which . . . due to inadvertence #was$ not produced during the preliminary investigation and . . . if produced wouldprobably change the outcome of the said investigation.B ( &n 0eptember )**) the 13C of uezon City denied the motion.0ubsequently on )@ :ebruary )**' petitioner filed a Motion to 0uppress and to 0uspend Hearing and5or Postponement assailing thevalidity of the search warrants and see-ing to en6oin the introduction in evidence of the items seized during the search. /gain on 'D:ebruary )**' the motion was denied. /ggrieved, petitioner "lano went to the Court of /ppeals on !ertiorari . &n 'D March )**> the3enth <ivision of the Court of /ppeals spea-ing through Mme. Justice &rdoLez9!enitez unanimously denied the petition for !ertiorari .

Petitioner "lanoKs argument is premised on the proposition that in no instance can a trial court issue a search warrant ordering thesearch of a place outside its territorial 6urisdiction, Malaloan % . Court o- Appeals 1 which was promulgated during the pendency of theinstant petition has already resolved this very same issue. =e quoteMalaloan where the factual circumstances bear a stri-ing similaritywith those of the case at bench A



"t may be conceded, as a matter of policy, that where a criminal case is pending, the court wherein it was filed, or theassigned branch thereof, has primar/ 6urisdiction to issue the search warrant7 and where no such criminal case hasyet been filed, that the eecutive 6udges or their lawful substitutes in the areas and for the offenses contemplated inCircular o. )* shall have primar/ 6urisdiction.

3his should not, however, mean that a court whose territorial 6urisdiction does not embrace the place to be searchedcannot issue a search warrant therefor, where the obtention of that search warrant is necessitated and 6ustified bycompelling considerations of urgency, sub6ect, time and place. '

;i-ewise, Malaloan has already 6ettisoned the reliance of petitioner "lano on Circular o. )* A

:rom this, it is theorized that Bonly the branch of a 1egional 3rial Court which has 6urisdiction over the place to be

searched could grant an application for and issue a warrant to search that place.B 0upport for such position is soughtto be drawn from issuances of this Court, that is, Circular o. )> issued on &ctober ), )*@, as amended by Circularo. )* on /ugust D, )*@(.

=e re6ect that proposition. :irstly, it is evident that both circulars were not intended to be of general application to allinstances involving search warrants and in all courts as would be the case if they had been adopted as part of the1ules of Court. 3hese circulars were issued by the Court to meet a particular eigency, that is, as emergencyguidelines on applications for search warrants filed onl/ in the courts of Metropolitan Manila and other courts withmultiple salas and onl/ with respect to violations of the /nti90ubversion /ct, crimes against public order under the1evised Penal Code, illegal possession of firearms and5or ammunitions, and violations of the <angerous <rugs /ct."n other words, the aforesaid theory on the courtKs 6urisdiction to issue search warrants would not apply to single7sala!ourts and ot&er !rimes. /ccordingly, the rule sought by petitioners to be adopted by the Court would actually resultin a bifurcated procedure which would be vulnerable to legal and constitutional ob6ections. 2

"n fine, while the trial court which has territorial 6urisdiction over the place has primary authority to issue search warrants therefor, anycourt of competent 6urisdiction when necessitated and 6ustified by compelling considerations of urgency, sub6ect, time and place, mayissue a search warrant covering a place outside its territorial 6urisdiction, and this issue has been settled when Malaloan waspromulgated.

3he collateral issue raised by petitioner to strengthen his allegation that he was denied due process of law is seriously flawed.Petitioner equates the denial of his motion for reinvestigation and thereafter his motion to suppress and to suspend hearing with adenial of his right to a preliminary investigation which we said in =o % .Court o- Appeals 0 to be a substantive right. 3he record showsthat petitioner himself admitted that a preliminary investigation was in fact conducted. 3 3hus the 13C of uezon City was merelyeercising its sound discretion in denying petitionerKs motion for reinvestigation which was filed some seven #($ months after theinformation was filed with the trial court and which sought to disprove the evidence already considered by the prosecutor during thepreliminary investigation, as well as his motion to suppress and suspend hearing which is basically anchored on the supposed nullity ofthe search warrants.

=H1:&1, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the 13C of uezon City, !r. )2D, the petition for review is <"<and the <ecision of the Court of /ppeals upholding the validity of the assailed orders of the trial court is /::"1M<.

0& &1<1<.

?as;ington )istiers 4. CA

6ACTS@

). =ashington <istillers, "nc. is engaged in the manufacture of liquor products, under the labels Fin 0even, =ashington Fin +, ;uzonand /nisado, using as containers >2cc round white flint bottles with blown9in mar-s of ;a 3ondeLa, "nc. and Finebra 0an Miguel.

'. &n the basis of 0earch =arrant o. *>9+D issued by Hon. 1osalio F. de la 1osa, Presiding Judge, !ranch ?""" of the 1egional

3rial Court of Manila, agents of the ational !ureau of "nvestigation seized on May '+9'(, )**> from the premises of petitioners in 0an:ernando, Pampanga, >)D,'@* pieces of >2cc round white flint bottles, for alleged violation of 1epublic /ct o. +'>.

>. 3he seized bottles were deposited in the warehouse of private respondent ;a 3ondeLa <istillers, "nc. in ?elasquez, 3ondo, Manila onthe ground that there was no space for storage in the court or in the !" compound. petitioners filed a motion to quash the searchwarrant on the ground that the 1egional 3rial Court of Manila had no 6urisdiction to issue a search warrant to be eecuted in 0an:ernando, Pampanga. "n addition, they claimed that there was no probable cause for issuing the search warrant because 1./. o. +'>does not cover registered bottles of liquor manufacturers and that even assuming that it does, under N of the law, no action could beinstituted against petitioners because the bottles had lawfully been sold to them.

D. &n certiorari to the Court of /ppeals, the order of the trial court was set aside. &n /ugust >), )**>, Hon. /ntonio ;. <escallar, whohad been designated assisting 6udge of !ranch ?""", granted petitionersK motion to quash. He found private respondent guilty offorum9shopping and ruled that the 1egional 3rial Court of Manila had no authority to issue a search warrant effective outside itsterritorial 6urisdiction.

ISSUE@ ?N t;e sear*; Barrants are 4aid.

HE")@ NO

RATIO@

"ndeed, what is noticeable about this case is that possession of the bottle was transferred to private respondent through the epediencyof a search warrant, so that instead of merely being an ancillary writ issued either as an incident of criminal proceedings or inanticipation of such proceedings, the proceedings for a search warrant have become, for all intents and purposes, the mainproceedings by which private respondent have been able to obtain possession of what it claims to be its property. Enli-e in an ordinaryaction, however, there was neither complaint by which petitioners could have been informed of the charge against them nor answer bywhich they could have been heard in their defense, before property claimed by them was ta-en from them and given to privaterespondent.



Contrary to the requirement of 1ule )'+, N)) that property seized by virtue of a search warrant must be deposited in custodia legis, the!" delivered the bottles to the private respondent ;a 3ondeLa. "t is claimed that this was done because there was no place for storageeither at the !" compound or in the premises of the 13C. 3his is not a good ecuse. 0ome place could have been found or rented forthe purpose, but the delivery of the bottles to private respondent cannot be made without giving the impression that private respondenthas been given possession of bottles claimed by petitioners to have been lawfully acquired by them.

"ndeed, it would seem that private respondent ;a 3ondeLa later brought the certiorari proceedings in the Court of /ppeals mainly inorder to -eep the bottles in its possession and not really as legal custodian, in anticipation of a criminal proceeding. Private respondenthad been frustrated not only in applying for a search warrant to the 13C at 0an :ernando, Pampanga.

Private respondentKs desire to maintain the search warrant would be understandable if there was a criminal action. !ut there was none.

Pri4ate res<ondents are *ai+ of oBners;i< does not entite it to an aBard of t;e <ossession of t;e sei:ed ottes t;roug;t;e eD<edien*y of sear*; Barrant <ro*eedings. T;e tite to and <ossession of t;e ottes are 4ery +u*; dis<uted, <etitioners;a4ing asserted oBners;i< of t;e sa+e <ro<erty y aBfu a*uisition for 4aue, in addition in4o>ing F' of R.A. No. 2&( as adefense. T;ese *onsiderations <re*ude <ri4ate res<ondents <ossession of t;e <ro<erty under t;e sear*; Barrant.

)AGAO SA? MI"" CO., INC., plaintiff9appellant, vs.APRONIANO $. CASTI""O and )AGAO "I$HT PO?ER CO., INC., defendants9appellees.

$.R. No. "%1-1 August 0, /('

MA"CO"M, J.:

3he issue in this case, as announced in the opening sentence of the decision in the trial court and as set forth by counsel for the partieson appeal, involves the determination of the nature of the properties described in the complaint. 3he trial 6udge found that thoseproperties were personal in nature, and as a consequence absolved the defendants from the complaint, with costs against the plaintiff.

3he <avao 0aw Mill Co., "nc., is the holder of a lumber concession from the Fovernment of the Philippine "slands. "t has operated asawmill in the sitio of Maa, barrio of 3igatu, municipality of <avao, Province of <avao. However, the land upon which the business wasconducted belonged to another person. &n the land the sawmill company erected a building which housed the machinery used by it.0ome of the implements thus used were clearly personal property, the conflict concerning machines which were placed and mountedon foundations of cement. "n the contract of lease between the sawmill company and the owner of the land there appeared thefollowing provision4

3hat on the epiration of the period agreed upon, all the improvements and buildings introduced and erected by the party ofthe second part shall pass to the eclusive ownership of the party of the first part without any obligation on its part to pay any

amount for said improvements and buildings7 also, in the event the party of the second part should leave or abandon the landleased before the time herein stipulated, the improvements and buildings shall li-ewise pass to the ownership of the party ofthe first part as though the time agreed upon had epired4 Provided, however, 3hat the machineries and accessories are notincluded in the improvements which will pass to the party of the first part on the epiration or abandonment of the land leased.

"n another action, wherein the <avao ;ight O Power Co., "nc., was the plaintiff and the <avao, 0aw, Mill Co., "nc., was the defendant, a 6udgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in that action against the defendant in that action7 a writ of eecution issued thereon, andthe properties now in question were levied upon as personalty by the sheriff. o third party claim was filed for such properties at thetime of the sales thereof as is borne out by the record made by the plaintiff herein. "ndeed the bidder, which was the plaintiff in thataction, and the defendant herein having consummated the sale, proceeded to ta-e possession of the machinery and other propertiesdescribed in the corresponding certificates of sale eecuted in its favor by the sheriff of <avao.

/s connecting up with the facts, it should further be eplained that the <avao 0aw Mill Co., "nc., has on a number of occasions treatedthe machinery as personal property by eecuting chattel mortgages in favor of third persons. &ne of such persons is the appellee byassignment from the original mortgages.

/rticle >>D, paragraphs ) and , of the Civil Code, is in point. /ccording to the Code, real property consists of A). ;and, buildings, roads and constructions of all -inds adhering to the soil7

. Machinery, liquid containers, instruments or implements intended by the owner of any building or land for use in connectionwith any industry or trade being carried on therein and which are epressly adapted to meet the requirements of such trade ofindustry.

/ppellant emphasizes the first paragraph, and appellees the last mentioned paragraph. =e entertain no doubt that the trial 6udge andappellees are right in their appreciation of the legal doctrines flowing from the facts.

"n the first place, it must again be pointed out that the appellant should have registered its protest before or at the time of the sale of thisproperty. "t must further be pointed out that while not conclusive, the characterization of the property as chattels by the appellant isindicative of intention and impresses upon the property the character determined by the parties. "n this connection the decision of thiscourt in the case of 0tandard &il Co. of ew 8or-%s. Jaramillo # G)*'>, DD Phil., +>2$, whether oiter di!ta or not, furnishes the -ey to

such a situation."t is, however not necessary to spend overly must time in the resolution of this appeal on side issues. "t is machinery which is involved7moreover, machinery not intended by the owner of any building or land for use in connection therewith, but intended by a lessee for usein a building erected on the land by the latter to be returned to the lessee on the epiration or abandonment of the lease.

/ similar question arose in Puerto 1ico, and on appeal being ta-en to the Enited 0tates 0upreme Court, it was held that machinerywhich is movable in its nature only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant, but not when soplaced by a tenant, a usufructuary, or any person having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the agent of the owner. "nthe opinion written by Chief Justice =hite, whose -nowledge of the Civil ;aw is well -nown, it was in part said4

3o determine this question involves fiing the nature and character of the property from the point of view of the rights of ?aldesand its nature and character from the point of view of evers O Callaghan as a 6udgment creditor of the /ltagracia Companyand the rights derived by them from the eecution levied on the machinery placed by the corporation in the plant. :ollowing theCode apoleon, the Porto 1ican Code treats as immovable #real$ property, not only land and buildings, but also attributes



immovability in some cases to property of a movable nature, that is, personal property, because of the destination to which it isapplied. B3hings,B says section >>D of the Porto 1ican Code, Bmay be immovable either by their own nature or by theirdestination or the ob6ect to which they are applicable.B umerous illustrations are given in the fifth subdivision of section >>,which is as follows4 BMachinery, vessels, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenements for the industrialor wor-s that they may carry on in any building or upon any land and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industryor wor-s.B #"ee also Code ap., articles )+, )@ et se. to and inclusive of article >D, recapitulating the things which, thoughin themselves movable, may be immobilized.$ 0o far as the sub6ect9matter with which we are dealing A machinery placed inthe plant A it is plain, both under the provisions of the Porto 1ican ;aw and of the Code apoleon, that machinery which ismovable in its nature only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant. 0uch resultwould not be accomplished, therefore, by the placing of machinery in a plant by a tenant or a usufructuary or any personhaving only a temporary right. #<emolombe, 3it. *, o. '2>7 /ubry et 1au, 3it. ', p. )', 0ection )+D7 ;aurent, 3it. , o. DD(7

and decisions quoted in :uzier9Herman ed. Code apoleon under articles '' et se.$ 3he distinction rests, as pointed out by<emolombe, upon the fact that one only having a temporary right to the possession or en6oyment of property is not presumedby the law to have applied movable property belonging to him so as to deprive him of it by causing it by an act ofimmobilization to become the property of another. "t follows that abstractly spea-ing the machinery put by the /ltagraciaCompany in the plant belonging to 0anchez did not lose its character of movable property and become immovable bydestination. !ut in the concrete immobilization too- place because of the epress provisions of the lease under which the /ltagracia held, since the lease in substance required the putting in of improved machinery, deprived the tenant of any right tocharge against the lessor the cost such machinery, and it was epressly stipulated that the machinery so put in should becomea part of the plant belonging to the owner without compensation to the lessee. Ender such conditions the tenant in putting inthe machinery was acting but as the agent of the owner in compliance with the obligations resting upon him, and theimmobilization of the machinery which resulted arose in legal effect from the act of the owner in giving by contract apermanent destination to the machinery.

3he machinery levied upon by evers O Callaghan, that is, that which was placed in the plant by the /ltagracia Company,being, as regards evers O Callaghan, movable property, it follows that they had the right to levy on it under the eecutionupon the 6udgment in their favor, and the eercise of that right did not in a legal sense conflict with the claim of ?aldes, sinceas to him the property was a part of the realty which, as the result of his obligations under the lease, he could not, for thepurpose of collecting his debt, proceed separately against. #?aldes %s. Central /ltagracia G)*', '' E.0., @.$

:inding no reversible error in the record, the 6udgment appealed from will be affirmed, the costs of this instance to be paid by theappellant.

A4are: 4s. T;e Court of 6irst Instan*e 21 P;i. (( 5$R No. "%1'('37 January &/, /(0

:acts4&n June >, )*>+, the chief of of the secret service of the /nti9Esury !oard presented to Judge <avid, presiding 6udge of C:" of3ayabas, alleging that according to reliable information, the petitioner is -eeping in his house in "nfanta, 3ayabas documents, receipts,lists, chits and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as a money lender charging usurious rates of interest inviolation of the law.

"n his oath the chief of the secret service did not swear to the truth of his statements upon his -nowledge of the facts but the informationreceived by him from a reliable person. Epon this questioned affidavit, the 6udge issued the search warrant, ordering the search of thepetitioners house at any time of the day or night, the seizure of the boo-s and documents and the immediate delivery of such to him#6udge$. =ith said warrant, several agents of the /nti9Esury !oard entered the petitionerKs store and residence at ( oKcloc- of the nightand seized and too- possession of various articles belonging to the petitioner.

3he petitioner as-s that the warrant of issued by the Court of :irst "nstance of 3ayabas, ordering the search of his house and theseizure, at anytime of the day or night, of certain accounting boo-s, documents, and papers belonging to him in his residence situatedin "nfanta, 3ayabas, as well as the order of a later date, authorizing the agents of the /nti9Esury board to retain the articles seized, bedeclared illegal and set aside, and prays that all the articles in question be returned to him.

"ssues4

).$ =hat is the nature of searchers and seizures as contemplated in the law

'.$ =hat is required of the oath in the issuance of search warrant

>.$ =hat is the purpose of the disposition in addition to the affidavit

D.$ =hether or not the search warrant could be serve at night

.$ =hether or not the seizure of evidence to use in an investigation is constitutional

+.$ =hether or not there was a waiver of constitutional guarantees

Held4

/ search warrant is an order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the Philippine "slands, signed by a 6udge or a 6ustice of thepeace, and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property and bring it before the court #section *,Feneral &rders. o. @, as amended by section + of /ct o. '@@+$. &f all the rights of a citizen, few are of greater importance or moreessential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves the eemption of his private affairs, boo-s,and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others # In re Pacific 1ailways Commission, >' :ed., 'D)7 "nterstate CommerceCommission vs !rimson, >@ ;aw. ed., )2D(7 !royd %s. E. 0., '* ;aw. ed., (D+7 Caroll %s. E. 0., +* ;aw. ed., D>, D*$. =hile the powerto search and seize is necessary to the public welfare, still it must be eercised and the law enforced without transgressing theconstitutional rights or citizen, for the enforcement of no statue is of sufficient importance to 6ustify indifference to the basis principles ofgovernment #People %s. lias, )D( . ., D('$.



/s the protection of the citizen and the maintenance of his constitutional right is one of the highest duties and privileges of the court,these constitutional guaranties should be given a liberal construction or a strict construction in favor of the individual, to prevent stealthyencroachment upon, or gradual depreciation on, the rights secured by them#0tate %s.Custer County, )*@ Pac., >+'7 0tate %s. Mc<aniel,'>) Pac., *+7 '>( Pac., >(>$. 0ince the proceeding is a drastic one, it is the general rule that statutes authorizing searches andseizure or search warrants must be strictly construed #1ose %s. 0t. Clair, '@ :ed., G'd, )@*7 ;eonard %s.E. 0., + :ed. G'd, >>7Perry %s. E. 0. )D :ed. G'd,@@7 Cofer %s.0tate, ))@ 0o., +)>$.

Enreasonable searches and seizures are a menace against which the constitutional guarantee afford full protection. 3he termBunreasonable search and seizureB is not defined in the Constitution or in Feneral &rders o. @, and it is said to have no fied,absolute or unchangeable meaning, although the term has been defined in general language. /ll illegal searches and seizure areunreasonable while lawful ones are reasonable. =hat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure in any particular

case is purely a 6udicial question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search,the presence or absence or probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, andthe character of the articles procured #Fo9!art "mporting Co. %s. E. 0. ( ;aw. ed., >(D7 Peru %s. E. 0., D :ed., G'd, @@)7E.0.%s. ?atune, '*' :ed., D*(7 /ngelo %s. E. 0. (2 ;aw, ed., )D7 ;ambert%s. E. 0. '@' :ed., D)>7 E. 0. %s. !ateman, '(@ :ed., '>)7Mason %s.1ollins, )+ :ed. Cas. Go. *'', ' !iss., **$.

either the Constitution nor Feneral &rders. o. @ provides that it is of imperative necessity to ta-e the deposition of the witnesses tobe presented by the applicant or complainant in addition to the affidavit of the latter. 3he purpose of both in requiring the presentation ofdepositions is nothing more than to satisfy the committing magistrate of the eistence of probable cause. 3herefore, if the affidavit ofthe applicant or complainant is sufficient, the 6udge may dispense with that of other witnesses. "nasmuch as the affidavit of the agent inthis case was insufficient because his -nowledge of the facts was not personal but merely hearsay, it is the duty of the 6udge to requirethe affidavit of one or more witnesses for the purpose of determining the eistence of probable cause to warrant the issuance of thesearch warrant. =hen the affidavit of the applicant of the complaint contains sufficient facts within his personal and direct -nowledge, itis sufficient if the 6udge is satisfied that there eist probable cause7 when the applicantKs -nowledge of the facts is mere hearsay, theaffidavit of one or more witnesses having a personal -nowledge of the fact is necessary. =e conclude, therefore, that the warrant

issued is li-ewise illegal because it was based only on the affidavit of the agent who had no personal -nowledge of the facts.0ection )2) of Feneral &rders, o. @ authorizes that the search be made at night when it is positively asserted in the affidavits thatthe property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched. /s we have declared the affidavits insufficient and the warrantissued eclusively upon it illegal, our conclusion is that the contention is equally well founded and that the search could not legally bemade at night.

3he only description of the articles given in the affidavit presented to the 6udge was as follows4 Bthat there are being -ept in saidpremises boo-s, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as money9lender,charging a usurious rate of interest, in violation of the law.B 3a-ing into consideration the nature of the article so described, it is clearthat no other more adequate and detailed description could have been given, particularly because it is difficult to give a particulardescription of the contents thereof. 3he description so made substantially complies with the legal provisions because the officer of thelaw who eecuted the warrant was thereby placed in a position enabling him to identify the articles, which he did.

/t the hearing of the incidents of the case raised before the court it clearly appeared that the boo-s and documents had really been

seized to enable the /nti9Esury !oard to conduct an investigation and later use all or some of the articles in question as evidenceagainst the petitioner in the criminal cases that may be filed against him. 3he seizure of boo-s and documents by means of a searchwarrant, for the purpose of using them as evidence in a criminal case against the person in whose possession they were found, isunconstitutional because it ma-es the warrant unreasonable, and it is equivalent to a violation of the constitutional provision prohibitingthe compulsion of an accused to testify against himself #Ey Iheytin %s. ?illareal, D' Phil,, @@+7 !rady %s.E. 0., '++ E. 0., +'273emperani %s. E. 0., '** :ed., >+7 E. 0. %s.Madden, '*( :ed., +(*7 !oyd %s. E. 0.,))+ E. 0., ))+7 Caroll %s. E. 0., '+( E. 0., )>'$.3herefore, it appearing that at least nineteen of the documents in question were seized for the purpose of using them as evidenceagainst the petitioner in the criminal proceeding or proceedings for violation against him, we hold that the search warrant issued isillegal and that the documents should be returned to him.

3he /nti9Esury !oard insinuates in its answer that the petitioner cannot now question the validity of the search warrant or theproceedings had subsequent to the issuance thereof, because he has waived his constitutional rights in proposing a compromisewhereby he agreed to pay a fine of P'22 for the purpose of evading the criminal proceeding or proceedings. =e are of the opinion thatthere was no such waiver, first, because the petitioner has emphatically denied the offer of compromise and, second, because if therewas a compromise it reffered but to the institution of criminal proceedings fro violation of the /nti9Esury ;aw. 3he waiver would have

been a good defense for the respondents had the petitioner voluntarily consented to the search and seizure of the articles in question,but such was not the case because the petitioner protested from the beginning and stated his protest in writing in the insufficientinventory furnished him by the agents.

!UR$OS SR 4 CHIE6 O6 STA66 )>> 0C1/ @22 0C&;"7 <ecember '+, )*@D

/3E1

Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory in6unction

:/C30

9 <ecember (, )*@' Judge rnani Cruz9PaLo C:" 1izal Guezon City, issued two search warrants under which the premises -nown aso. )*, 1oad >, Pro6ect +, uezon City, business address of Metropolitan Mail newspaper, and (@D Enits C O <, 1M0 !uilding,uezon /venue, uezon City, business address of the B=e :orumB newspaper were searched.

9 office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication anddistribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, boo-s and other written literature alleged to be in thepossession and control of petitioner Jose !urgos, Jr. publisher9editor of the B=e :orumB newspaper, were seized.

9 3he questioned search warrants were issued by respondent 6udge upon application of Col. 1olando . /badilla, "ntelligence &fficer ofthe P.C. Metrocom. 3he application was accompanied by the Joint /ffidavit of /le6andro M. Futierrez and Pedro E. 3ango, members ofthe Metrocom "ntelligence and 0ecurity Froup under Col. /badilla which conducted a surveillance of the premises prior to the filing ofthe application for the search warrants on <ecember (, )*@'.



9 1espondents aver that the case should be dismissed on the ground that petitioners had come to 0C without having previously soughtthe quashal of the search warrants before the issuing 6udge. !ut this procedural flaw notwithstanding, 0C too- cognizance of thispetition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional issues raised, not to mention the public interest generated by thesearch.

9 1espondents li-ewise urge dismissal of the petition on ground of laches, since said search warrants were issued on <ecember (,)*@', but the instant petition impugning the same was filed only on June )+, )*@>. However, 0C found that the etra6udicial effortseerted by petitioners quite evidently negate the presumption that they had abandoned their right to the possession of the seizedproperty, thereby refuting the charge of laches against them.

PetitionersK Claims

Q Petitioners fault respondent 6udge for his alleged failure to conduct an eamination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and hiswitnesses, as mandated by the constitution as well as 0ec. D, 1ule )'+ of the 1ules of Court. However, 0C found that as petitionersthemselves conceded during the hearing on /ugust *, )*@>, that an eamination had indeed been conducted by respondent 6udge ofCol. /badilla and his witnesses, this issue is moot and academic.

Q 0earch =arrants o. '29@'Ga and o. '29@'Gb were used to search two distinct places4 o. )*, 1oad >, Pro6ect +, uezon City and(@D Enits C O <, 1M0 !uilding, uezon /venue, uezon City. &b6ection is interposed to the eecution of 0earch =arrant o. '29@'Gbat the latter address on the ground that the two search warrants pinpointed only one place where petitioner Jose !urgos, Jr. wasallegedly -eeping and concealing the articles listed therein, i.e., o. )*, 1oad >, Pro6ect +, uezon City.

Q although the warrants were directed against Jose !urgos, Jr. alone, articles belonging to his co9petitioners Jose !urgos, 0r., !ayani0oriano and the J. !urgos Media 0ervices, "nc. were seized.

Q real properties were seized under the disputed warrants.

Q that documents relied on by respondents could not have provided sufficient basis for the finding of a probable cause upon which awarrant may validly issue in accordance with 0ection >, /rticle "? of the )*(> Constitution

"00E0

=& the two search warrants are4

). defective for stating only one and the same place to be searched

'. null and void for including properties not owned by the person named in the warrants

>. null and void for including real properties

D. null and void for being violative of the constitution, thus encroaching on petitionersK fundamental rights

H;<

). &

9 3he defect pointed out is a typographical error. 3wo search warrants were applied for and issued because the purpose and intentwere to search two distinct premises. 3he addresses of the places sought to be searched were specifically set forth in the application,and since it was Col. /badilla himself who headed the team which eecuted the search warrants, the ambiguity that might have arisenby reason of the typographical error is more apparent than real.

9 "n the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity, it has been heldBthat the eecuting officerKs prior -nowledge as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant. 3his would seem to be especially truewhere the eecuting officer is the affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had issued, and when he -nows that the 6udge who issued thewarrant intended the building described in the affidavit. /nd it has also been said that the eecuting officer may loo- to the affidavit inthe official court file to resolve an ambiguity in the warrant as to the place to be searched.B

'. &

9 0ection ', 1ule )'+ of the 1ules of Court, enumerates the personal properties that may be seized under a search warrant. 3he rule

does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. "t may ormay not be owned by him. &wnership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant isdirected has control or possession of the property sought to be seized.

>. &

9 Ender /rticle D)G of the Civil Code , Bmachinery, receptables, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement foran industry or wor-s which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and which tend directly to meet the needs of the saidindustry or wor-sB are considered immovable property. Petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land and5or building on whichthe machineries were placed. 3his being the case, the machineries in question, while in fact bolted to the ground remain movableproperty susceptible to seizure under a search warrant.

D. 80

9 Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man tobelieve that an offense has been committed and that the ob6ects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be

searched. /nd when the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with thepublication of subversive materials, as in the case at bar, the application and5or its supporting affidavits must contain a specification,stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice.

9 "n mandating that Bno warrant shall issue ecept upon probable cause to be determined by the 6udge, . . . after eamination under oathor affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produceR the Constitution requires no less than personal -nowledge by thecomplainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be 6ustified. "n /lvarez v. C:", 0C ruled thatBthe oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal -nowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because thepurpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual ma-ing the affidavit and see-ing the issuance of thewarrant, of the eistence of probable cause.B

9 the search warrants are in the nature of general warrants.

9 /s a consequence of the search and seizure, the premises were padloc-ed and sealed, with the further result that the printing andpublication of said newspapers were discontinued. 0uch closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the



freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental law, and constitutes a virtual denial of petitionersK freedom to epressthemselves in print.

<ispositive 0earch =arrants os. '29@'Ga and '29@'Gb issued by respondent 6udge on <ecember (, )*@' are null and void. /llarticles seized thereunder are ordered released to petitioners.

Prudente 4s EDe*uti4e Judge )ayrit $.R. No. 3&30- )e*e+er 1, /3/

:acts43he case is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order of respondent Judge dated * March )*@@ which denied <r. emesis. PrudenteSs #PEP President$ motion to quash 0earch =arrant o. @(9)D, as well as his order dated '2 /pril )*@@ denying petitionerKsmotion for reconsideration of the earlier order.

"t appears that on >) &ctober )*@(, P5Ma6or /lladin <imagmaliw, Chief of the "ntelligence 0pecial /ction <ivision #"0/<$ of the =esternPolice <istrict #=P<$ filed with the 1egional 3rial Court #13C$ of Manila, !ranch >>, presided over by respondent Judge /belardo<ayrit, now /ssociate Justice of the Court of /ppeals, an application for the issuance of a search warrant, doc-eted therein as0/1CH =/11/3 &. @(9)D, for ?"&;/3"& &: P< &. )@++ #"llegal Possession of :irearms, etc.$ entitled BPeople of thePhilippines, Plaintiff, versus <r. emesis . Prudente, <efendant.B "n his application for search warrant, P5Ma6or /lladin <imagmaliwalleged the following4 that in PEP he has in his control or possession firearms, eplosives handgrenades and ammunition which areillegally possessed or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. 3hat the undersigned has verified the report andfound it to be a fact, and therefore, believes that a 0earch =arrant should be issued to enable the undersigned or any agent of the lawto ta-e possession and bring to the Honorable Court.

"ssue4

=hether or not the application for 0earch =arrant o. @(9)D filed is legal against the defendant in violation of P< o. )@++

Held4

o. 3he questioned orders dated * March )*@@ and '2 /pril )*@@ as well as 0earch =arrant o. @(9)D were annulled and set aside.

0earch =arrant

"n /lvarez vs. Court of :irst "nstance, the Court laid the following test in determining whether the allegations in an application for searchwarrant or in a supporting deposition, are based on personal -nowledge or not, stating that true test of sufficiency of a deposition oraffidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in a manner that per6ury could be charged thereon andthe affiant be held liable for damage caused. 3he oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal -nowledge of theapplicant for search warrant, and5or his witnesses, not of the facts merely reported by a person whom one considers to be reliable.

Petitioner also assails the validity of the search warrant on the ground that it failed to particularly describe the place to be searched,contending that there were several rooms at the ground floor and the second floor of the PEP.

"n the present case, however, the application for search warrant was captioned4 B:or ?iolation of P< o. )@++ #"llegal Possession of:irearms, etc.$ =hile the said decree punishes several offenses, the alleged violation in this case was, qualified by the phrase Billegalpossession of firearms, etc.B /s eplained by respondent Judge, the term Betc.B referred to ammunitions and eplosives. "n other words,the search warrant was issued for the specific offense of illegal possession of firearms and eplosives.

Probable Cause

Manifestly, in the case at bar, the evidence failed to show the eistence of probable cause to 6ustify the issuance of the search warrant.

3he Court also notes post facto that the search in question yielded, no armalites, handguns, pistols, assorted weapons or ammunitionsas stated in the application for search warrant, the supporting deposition, and the search warrant the supporting hand grenades wereitself only three #>$ live fragmentation found in the searched premises of the PEP, according to the affidavit of an alleged member of thesearching party.

3he Court avails of this decision to reiterate the strict requirements for determination of Bprobable causeB in the valid issuance of asearch warrant, as enunciated in earlier cases. 3rue, these requirements are stringent but the purpose is to assure that theconstitutional right of the individual against unreasonable search and seizure shall remain both meaningful and effective.

Ender &ath

:inally, in connection with the petitionerKs contention that the failure of the applicant to state, under oath, the urgent need for theissuance of the search warrant, his application having been filed on a 0aturday, rendered the questioned warrant invalid for beingviolative of this CourtKs Circular o. )*, dated )D /ugust )*@(, which reads4 3hat applications filed after office hours, during 0aturdays,0undays and holidays shall li-ewise be ta-en cognizance of and acted upon by any 6udge of the court having 6urisdiction of the place to

be searched, but in such cases the applicant shall certify and state the facts under oath, to the satisfaction of the 6udge, that theissuance is urgent.

Pendon 4s. Court of A<<eas, $.R. No. 3130(, / SCRA 1&/ , No4e+er 2, //-

F.1. o. @D@(>. ovember )+, )**2.T:"103 <"?"0"&.

1; P<&, for himself and as Managing Partner of I1 31/<"F C&MP/8, petitioner, vs. 3H C&E13 &: /PP/;0,H&. 1"E 3. J&C0& in his capacity as Presiding Judge of !ranch D(, 1egional 3rial Court of egros &ccidental, :"0C/; /;/<1 . M"1/&, in his capacity as City :iscal of !acolod City and 3H P1&?"C"/; C&MM/<1 &: 3H >>)st PCC&MP/8, !/C&;&< C"38, respondents.



Constitutional ;aw7 0earches and 0eizures7 0earch =arrant7 1ight against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed under /rticle """, 0ection ' of the )*@( Constitution.A3he right against unreason9able searches and seizures is guaranteed under /rticle """#!ill of 1ights$, 0ection ' of the )*@( Constitution of the Philippines.

0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 3he issuance of a search warrant is 6ustified only upon a finding of probable cause7 Probable cause defined71equisites.AEnder the above provision, the issuance of a search warrant is 6ustified only upon a finding of probable cause. Probablecause for a search has been defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man tobelieve that an offense has been committed and that the ob6ects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to besearched #!urgos, 0r. v. Chief of 0taff, F.1. o. +D'+), <ec. '+, )*@D, )>> 0C1/ @22$. "n determining the eistence of probablecause, it is required that4 )$ the 6udge #or$ officer must eamine the witnesses personally7 '$ the eamination must be under oath7and #>$ the eamination must be reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers.

0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 3he opinion or finding of probable cause must to a certain degree be substantiated or supported by therecord.A"t has been ruled that the eistence of probable cause depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the 6udgeconducting the eamination #;una v. Plaza, F.1. o. ;9'()), ov. '*, )*+@$, however, the opinion or finding of probable cause must,to a certain degree, be substantiated or supported by the record.

0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 1equirement mandated by the law and the rules that the 6udge must personally eamine theapplicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers before issuing the warrant was not sufficiently compliedwith7 Case at bar.A"n this case, =e find that the requirement mandated by the law and the rules that the 6udge must personallyeamine the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers before issuing the warrant, was not sufficientlycomplied with. 3he applicant himself was not as-ed any searching question by Judge Magallanes. 3he records disclose that the onlypart played by the applicant, ;ieutenant 1o6as was to subscribe the application before Judge Magallanes. 3he application containedpre9typed questions, none of which stated that applicant had personal -nowledge of a robbery or a theft and that the proceeds thereofare in the possession and control of the person against whom the search warrant was sought to be issued.

0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 3o establish probable cause, the eamination must be probing and ehaustive not merely routinary

or pro forma.AU"t is aiomatic that the eamination must be probing and ehaustive, not merely routinary or pro forma, if the claimedprobable cause is to be established. 3he eamining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must ma-e hisown inquiry on the intent and 6ustification of the application.R

0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 3he law requires that the articles sought to be seized must be described with particularity.A/nother infirmity of0earch =arrant o. )@) is its generality. 3he law requires that the articles sought to be seized must be described with particularity. 3heitems listed in the warrant, to wit4 U/P&C&1 Falvanized bolts, grounding motor drive assembly, aluminum wires and other /P&C&13owers parts and line accessoriesR are so general that the searching team can practically ta-e half of the business of Iener 3rading,the premises searched. Iener 3rading, as alleged in petitionerSs petition before respondent Court of /ppeals and which has not beendenied by respondent, is engaged in the business of buying and selling scrap metals, second hand spare parts and accessories andempty bottles.

0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 "tems described in the application do not fall under the list of personal property which may be seized under0ection ', 1ule )'+ of the 1ules on Criminal Procedure.A:ar more important is that the items described in the application do not fallunder the list of personal property which may be seized under 0ection ', 1ule )'+ of the 1ules on Criminal Procedure because neitherthe application nor the 6oint deposition alleged that the item5s sought to be seized were4 a$ the sub6ect of an offense7 b$ stolen or

embezzled property and other proceeds or fruits of an offense7 and c$ used or intended to be used as a means of committing anoffense.

0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 "n issuing a search warrant, the Judge must strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution and the0tatutory provisions.AU3hus, in issuing a search warrant the Judge must strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution andthe statutory provisions. / liberal construction should be given in favor of the individual to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, orgradual depreciation of the rights secured by the Constitution. o presumption of regularity are to be invo-ed in aid of the process whenan officer underta-es to 6ustify it.R

0ame7 0ame7 0ame7 Ese in evidence of the articles seized pursuant to an invalid search warrant en6oined by 0ection > #'$, /rticle """ ofthe Constitution7 1eturn of the /rticles seized to petitioner is proper.A:inally, the seized articles were described in the receipt issued byPC 0ergeant Mamaril as galvanized bolts, ?9chuc-le, E9bolts and > )5' feet angular bar #p. '), 1ecord$. 3here is no showing that thepossession thereof is prohibited by law hence, the return thereof to petitioner is proper. /lso, the use in evidence of the articles seizedpursuant to an invalid search warrant is en6oined by 0ection >#'$, /rticle """ of the Constitution.

P3"3"& for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of /ppeals.

3he facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

;edesma, Fuinez, Causing, spino O 0erfino ;aw &ffice for petitioner.

M<"/;</, J.4

3his petition for review on certiorari see-s to set aside the decision #pp. >@9D', 1ollo$ of respondent Court of /ppeals which affirmed theorders dated /ugust 'D, )*@( #p. D>, 1ecord$ and &ctober )D, )*@(, #pp. >9D, 1ecord$ of the 1egional 3rial Court of egros&ccidental in Criminal Case o. +(.

&n :ebruary D, )*@(, :irst ;ieutenant :elipe ;. 1o6as, &fficer9in9Charge of the Philippine Constabulary9Criminal "nvestigation 0ervice#PC9C"0$, !acolod City, filed an application for a search warrant, alleging4

U .

U3hat he was informed and verily believes that I3H 0"/& who may be found at I1 31/<"F located at 1izal 0treet corner;acson 0treet, !acolod City has5have in her5his5their possession and control the following property5ies, to wit4

U/P&C&1 Falvanized bolts, grounding motor drive assembly7 aluminum wires and other /P&C&1 3ower parts and lineaccessories

which he5she5they is5are concealing in the premises above mentioned.

U3he undersigned has verified the report and found it to be the fact and has therefore reasons to believe that a 0/1CH =/11/3should be issued to enable the undersigned or any agent of the law to ta-e possession and bring the following described property5ies,to wit4

U/P&C&1 Falvanized bolts7 grounding motor drive assembly7 aluminum wires and other /P&C&1 3ower parts and lineaccessories.



U=H1:&1, the undersigned prays this Honorable Court to issue a 0/1CH =/11/3 commanding any peace officer to searchthe premises5house described in this application and to seize and bring to this Honorable Court the person5property5ies above9mentioned to be dealt with as the law may direct. !acolod City, Philippines

:eb. D, )*@( VVVVVVV.

0F<. :;"P ;. 1&J/0, J1.

";3, PC

&"C, P:&C"0, !acolod CityR

#p. )@, 1ecords$

3he application was subscribed before Judge <emosthenes <. Magallanes of the Municipal 3rial Court of !acolod City and supportedby the 6oint deposition of two #'$ witnesses, "gnacio ;. 1eyes, an employee of /P&C&1 #ational Power Corporation$ and "/"duardo /ba6a of the C"0 of !acolod City, quoted as follows4

U=e, "gnacio ;. 1eyes and "/" duardo /ba6a, C"0 after having been duly sworn to, testify as follows4

U). E03"&4 =hat are your names and other personal circumstances

U/0=14 "F/C"& ;. 180, >D years old, married, an employee of /P&C&1 and presently residing at roreco 0ubdivision,!acolod City and /"/ <E/1<& /!/J/, C"0, regular member of the C&5"P C"0 Command, !acolod City.

U'. E03"&4 <o you -now the premises5house of I93H 0"/& located at 1izal 0treet, near cor. ;acson 0t., !acolod City

U/0=14 8es, 0ir.

U>. E03"&4 <o you have personal -nowledge that said I3H 0"/& who may be found in the said premises5house has5 havein his5her5their possession and control the following property, to wit4

U/P&C&1 Falvanized bolts, grounding motor drive assembly, aluminum wires and other /P&C&1 3ower parts and lineaccessories

U/0=14 8es, sir.

UD. E03"&4 How do you -now that above9described property5ies is5are being -ept in said premises 5house

U/0=14 =e conducted surveillance and we were able to purchase some of these items.

U" ="300 =H1&:, we hereunto set our hands and affied our signature this Dth day of :eb. )*@( at !acolod City, Philippines.U0F<. "F/C"& ;. 180 0F<. <E/1<& J. /!/J/

/ffiant /ffiant

0E!0C1"!< /< 0=&1 to, before me this Dth day of :eb. )*@( at !acolod City, Philippines.

0F<. <M&03H0 ;. M/F/;;/0

Judge

ME"C"P/; 31"/; C&E13

!/C&;&< C"38R

#p. )*, 1ecord$

&n the basis of the foregoing application and 6oint deposition, Judge Magallanes issued 0earch =arrant o. )@), commanding thesearch of the property described in the warrant.

0ubsequently, constabulary officers stationed in !acolod City conducted a search of the premises described in the search warrant andseized the following articles, to wit4 )$ '(' -ilos of galvanized bolts, ? chuc-le and E9bolts7 and '$ > and )5' feet angular bar. 3hereceipt was signed by <igno Mamaril, PC 0ergeant and mar-ed Ufrom Ienneth 0iaoR #p. '), 1ecord$.

/ complaint for violation of the /nti9:encing ;aw #P.<. )+)'$ was filed against Ienneth 0iao with the office of the City :iscal by theational Power Corporation. 3hereafter, 0iao filed a counter9affidavit alleging that he had previously relinquished all his rights andownership over the Iener 3rading to herein petitioner rle Pendon. "n a resolution #pp. ''9'>, 1ecord$ dated May )@, )*@(, the officeof the City :iscal recommended the dismissal of the complaint against 0iao and the filing of a complaint for the same violation againstpetitioner. &n the same day, a complaint #p. 'D, 1ecord$ for ?iolation of the /nti9:encing ;aw was filed against petitioner and doc-etedas Criminal Case o. +( of the 1egional 3rial Court of egros &ccidental. 3he case was raffled to !ranch D( of the same courtpresided over by respondent Judge nrique 3. Jocson.

!efore his arraignment, petitioner filed on July *, )*@(, an application for the return of the articles seized by virtue of 0earch =arranto. )@) #pp. '+9'*, 1ecord$ on the ground that the said search warrant was illegally issued. 3he prosecuting fiscal filed an oppositionto the application #pp. >)9>', 1ecord$. 3he application was subsequently amended to an application for quashal of the illegally9issuedsearch warrant and for the return of the articles seized by virtue thereof #pp. >>9>@, 1ecords$.

&n /ugust 'D, )*@(, respondent Judge Jocson issued an order impliedly denying the application for the quashal of the search warrantwithout ruling on the issue of the validity of the issuance thereof. 3he order states4

UCounsel for accused having admitted in the hearing in open court that at least one of the seized items bears the identifying mar- of thecomplainant ational Power Corporation, and there being no statement that the seized items were acquired in usual course of businessfor value, this court is constrained to have the case tried without resolving whether or not the questioned search warrant was issuedvalidly.R #p. D>, 1ecords$

/ motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but it was denied on &ctober )D, )*@( #p. )), 1ollo$.



&n &ctober '2, )*@(, petitioner filed with the Court of /ppeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for arestraining order, assailing the legality of search warrant o. )@) and praying for the permanent prohibition against the use in evidenceof the articles and properties seized and the return thereof to petitioner. &n /pril D, )*@@, respondent Court of /ppeals dismissed thepetition. 3he appellate court found the eistence of a probable cause to 6ustify the issuance of the search warrant. 3he respondent courtheld4

U

U:or reasons indicated, =e hold that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the validity of the issuance of the 0earch =arrant o. )@)and to sustain further the ruling of the respondent trial court in denying the petition for the return of the articles and personal propertiesseized thereunder.

U=H1:&1, this petition is hereby <"0M"00<, with costs against petitioner. 3he previous order to maintain the status quo ishereby withdrawn and set aside.

U0& &1<1<.R #p. D), 1ollo$

3he motion for reconsideration of the above decision filed by petitioner on May ', )*@@ was denied in a resolution #p. D*, 1ollo$ datedJuly '), )*@@.

3he basic issue raised in this petition is the legality of the issuance of 0earch =arrant o. )@). "t is the contention of petitioner that theapplication for the search warrant and the 6oint deposition of the witnesses miserably failed to fulfill the requirements prescribed by theConstitution and the rules.

3he petitioner argues that the application of )st ;t. 1o6as and the 6oint deposition of /ba6a and 1eyes failed to comply with therequisites of searching questions and answers. 3he 6oint deposition of the witnesses showed that the questions therein were pretyped,mimeographed and the answers of the witnesses were merely filled9in. o eamination of the applicant and of the 6oint deponents waspersonally conducted by Judge Magallanes as required by law and the rules.

/dditionally, petitioner also contends that both the application of 1o6as and the 6oint deposition of /baya and 1eyes show that neither ofthe affiants had personal -nowledge that any specific offense was committed by petitioner or that the articles sought to be seized werestolen or that being so, they were brought to Ienneth 0iao.

;astly, the petitioner contends that, even assuming for the sa-e of polemics, that the articles belong to the latter, his Constitutional rightprevails over that of /P&C&1.

3he right against unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed under /rticle """ #!ill of 1ights$, 0ection ' of the )*@( Constitutionof the Philippines which provides4

U0ec. '. 3he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizuresof whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue ecept upon probablecause to be determined personally by the 6udge after eamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses hemay produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.R

Ender the above provision, the issuance of a search warrant is 6ustified only upon a finding of probable cause. Probable cause for a

search has been defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that anoffense has been committed and that the ob6ects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched #!urgos,0r. v. Chief of 0taff, F.1. o. +D'+), <ec. '+, )*@D, )>> 0C1/ @22$. "n determining the eistence of probable cause, it is required that4)$ the 6udge #or$ officer must eamine the witnesses personally7 '$ the eamination must be under oath7 and #>$ the eaminationmust be reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers #Marinas v. 0ioco, )2D 0C1/ D2>, Ponsica v. "gnalaga,F.1. o. ('>2), July >), )*@(, )' 0C1/ +D($. 3hese requirements are provided under 0ection D, 1ule )'+ of the ew 1ules ofCriminal Procedure which states4 U0ec. D. amination of complain9ant7 record.A3he 6udge must, before issuing the warrant, personallyeamine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath the complainant and the witnesses he may produceon facts personally -nown to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted.R

"t has been ruled that the eistence of probable cause depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the 6udge conductingthe eamination #;una v. Plaza, F.1. o. ;9'()), ov. '*, )*+@$, however, the opinion or finding of probable cause must, to a certaindegree, be substantiated or supported by the record.

"n this case, =e find that the requirement mandated by the law and the rules that the 6udge must personally eamine the applicant andhis witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers before issuing the warrant, was not sufficiently complied with. 3he

applicant himself was not as-ed any searching question by Judge Magallanes. 3he records disclose that the only part played by theapplicant, ;ieutenant 1o6as was to subscribe the application before Judge Magallanes. 3he application contained pre9typed questions,none of which stated that applicant had personal -nowledge of a robbery or a theft and that the proceeds thereof are in the possessionand control of the person against whom the search warrant was sought to be issued. "n the case of 1oan v. Fonzales, F.1. o. ()D)2,ov. ', )*@+, )D 0C1/ +@(, citing the case of Mata v. !ayona, F.1. o. 2('2, March '+, )*@D, )'@ 0C1/ >@@, where theapplicant himself was not sub6ected to an interrogation but was questioned only Uto ascertain, among others, if he -new and understood#his affidavit$ and only because the application was not yet subscribed and sworn to,R =e held that4

UMere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. 3he eamining Judge has to ta-e depositions in writing ofthe complainant and the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record. 0uch written deposition is necessary in order thatthe Judge may be able to properly determine the eistence or non9eistence of the probable cause, to hold liable for per6ury the persongiving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false.S

U

U"t is aiomatic that the eamination must be probing and ehaustive, not merely routinary or pro forma, if the claimed probable cause is

to be established. 3he eamining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must ma-e his own inquiry on theintent and 6ustification of the application.R #italics supplied7 p. +*$

;i-ewise, the 6oint deposition made by the two #'$ witnesses presented by the applicant can hardly satisfy the same requirement. 3hepublic respondent prosecutor admitted in his memorandum that the questions propounded were pre9typed.

3he offense which petitioner was sought to be charged was violation of the anti9fencing law which punishes the act of any person who,with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, -eep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy or sell,or in any other manner deal in any article, item, ob6ect or anything of value which he -nows, or should have -nown to him, to have beenderived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft #0ec. 'a, P.<. )+)'$. 3he four #D$ questions propounded could hardly supporta finding of probable cause. 3he first question was on the personal circumstances of the deponents. 3he second and third were leadingquestions answerable by yes or no. 3he fourth question was on how the deponents -new about their answers in the second and thirdquestions. 3he 6udge could have eploited this last ques9tion to convince himself of the eistence of a probable cause but he did not.3here was also no statement in the 6oint deposition that the articles sought to be seized were derived from the proceeds of the crime of



robbery or a theft or that applicants have any -nowledge that a robbery or theft was committed and the articles sought to be seizedwere the proceeds thereof. "t was not even shown what connection Ienneth 0iao has with Iener 3rading or with the premises soughtto be searched. !y and large, neither the application nor the 6oint deposition provided facts or circumstance which could lead a prudentman to believe that an offense had been committed and that the ob6ects sought in connection with the offense, if any, are in thepossession of the person named in the application.

U G3he searching questions propounded to the applicants of the search warrant and his witnesses must depend to a large etentupon the discretion of the Judge 6ust as long as the answers establish a reasonable ground to believe the commission of a specificoffense and that the applicant is one authorized by law, and said answers particularly describe with certainty the place to be searchedand the persons or things to be seized. 3he eamination or investigation which must be under oath may not be in public. "t may even beheld in the secrecy of his chambers. :ar more important is that the eamination or investigation is not merely routinary but one that is

thorough and elicit the required information. 3o repeat, it must be under oath and must be in writing. #Mata v. !ayona, 2('2, March'+, )*@D, )'@ 0C1/ >@@$ #italics supplied$

/nd, in uintero v. !", F.1. o. ;9>)D*, June '>, )*@@, )+' 0C1/ D+(, D@>4

U/s held in olasco v. PaLo o. +*@2>, &ctober @, )*@, )>* 0C1/ )+>$, the questions propounded by respondent ecutive Judge tothe applicantSs witness are not sufficiently searching to establish probable cause. /s-ing of leading questions to the deponent in anapplication for search warrant, and conducting of eamination in a general manner, would not satisfy the requirements for issuance of avalid search warrant.R

/nother infirmity of 0earch =arrant o. )@) is its generality. 3he law requires that the articles sought to be seized must be describedwith particularity. 3he items listed in the warrant, to wit4 U/P&C&1 Falvanized bolts, grounding motor drive assembly, aluminum wiresand other /P&C&1 3owers parts and line accessoriesR are so general that the searching team can practically ta-e half of thebusiness of Iener 3rading, the premises searched. Iener 3rading, as alleged in petitionerSs petition before respondent Court of /ppeals and which has not been denied by respondent, is engaged in the business of buying and selling scrap metals, second handspare parts and accessories and empty bottles.

:ar more important is that the items described in the application do not fall under the list of personal property which may be seizedunder 0ection ', 1ule )'+ of the 1ules on Criminal Procedure because neither the application nor the 6oint deposition alleged that theitem5s sought to be seized were4 a$ the sub6ect of an offense7 b$ stolen or embezzled property and other proceeds or fruits of anoffense7 and c$ used or intended to be used as a means of committing an offense.

"t is noted that respondent Judge Jocson himself had doubts about the eistence of probable cause in the issuance of the searchwarrant. "n denying petitionerSs motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to quash and application for articles seized byvirtue of search warrant o. )@), he stated4

U3he seeming lac- of probable cause during the application for search warrant in the lower court is cured by the admission for theaccused of counsel that at least one of the items seized bore the identifying mar- of complainant ational Power Corporation and thefailure to aver in the quashal motion and in the open hearing that the seized items themselves were acquired in the usual course ofbusiness for value in good faith. However, this order is without pre6udice to the right of the accused to pursue against the administrativeliability of M3CC Judge <emosthenes Magallanes.R #p. D, 1ollo$

"n his memorandum, City :iscal Mirano stated that the articles seized by virtue of search warrant o. )@) was ta-en from thepossession of petitioner who signed the receipt in behalf of Iener 3rading, which possession is punishable under 0ection , P.<. )+)',which states4

U0ec. . Presumption of :encing.AMere possession of any goods, article, item, ob6ect or anything of value which has been the sub6ectof robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.R

o matter how incriminating the articles ta-en from the petitioner may be, their seizure cannot validate an invalid warrant. /gain, in thecase of Mata v. !ayona, F.1. o. 2('2, March '+, )*@D, )'@ 0C1/ >@@4

U that nothing can 6ustify the issuance of the search warrant but the fulfillment of the legal requisites. "t might be well to point outwhat has been said in /sian 0urety O "nsurance Co., "nc. vs. Herrera4

W"t has been said that of all the rights of a citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than theright of personal security, and that involves the eemption of his private affairs, boo-s and papers from inspection and scrutiny ofothers. =hile the power to search and seize is necessary to the public welfare, still it must be eercised and the law enforced withouttransgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to 6ustify indifference to

the basic principles of government.R

U3hus, in issuing a search warrant the Judge must strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution and the statutory provisions. / liberal construction should be given in favor of the individual to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation of therights secured by the Constitution. o presumption of regularity are to be invo-ed in aid of the process when an officer underta-es to 6ustify it.R

:inally, the seized articles were described in the receipt issued by PC 0ergeant Mamaril as galvanized bolts, ?9chuc-le, E9bolts and >)5' feet angular bar #p. '), 1ecord$. 3here is no showing that the possession thereof is prohibited by law hence, the return thereof topetitioner is proper. /lso, the use in evidence of the articles seized pursuant to an invalid search warrant is en6oined by 0ection >#'$, /rticle """ of the Constitution.

/CC&1<"F;8, the petition is F1/3<. Judgment is hereby rendered4 )$ declaring 0earch =arrant o. )@) issued by Judge<emosthenes Magallanes E;; and ?&"<7 '$ ordering the return of the items seized by virtue of the said warrant to herein petitioner7and >$ permanently en6oining respondents from using in evidence the articles seized by virtue of 0earch =arrant o. )@) in CriminalCase o. +(.

0& &1<1<.

Pendon vs. Court of /ppeals, F1 o. @D@(>, digested

6a*ts4 !ased on the application and 6oint deposition, a search warrant was issued against 0iao and the same complaint was filedagainst petitioner for violation of the /nti9:encing ;aw. Petitioner contends that the application for the search warrant and the 6ointdeposition of witnesses failed to fulfill the requirements prescribed by the Constitution on the ground that probable cause was notpersonally determined.

Issue4 =hether or not the issuance of the said warrant is valid.



Hed4 o, Probable cause must be personally determined by the 6udge after eamination under oath of the complainant and thewitnesses he may produce before the issuance of a search warrant.

JOSE6INO S. ROAN, petitioner, vs.THE HONORA!"E ROMU"O T. $ON#A"ES, PRESI)IN$ JU)$E, RE$IONA" TRIA" COURT O6 MARIN)U9UE, !RANCH888GIII THE PROGINCIA" 6ISCA" O6 MARIN)U9UE THE PROGINCIA" COMMAN)ER, PC%INP MARIN)U9UE, respondents.

$.R. No. 01- No4e+er &', /32

CRU#, J:

&nce again we are as-ed to annul a search warrant on the ground that it violates the Constitution. /s we can do no less if we are to betrue to the mandate of the fundamental law, we do annul.

&ne of the most precious rights of the citizen in a free society is the right to be left alone in the privacy of his own house. 3hat right hasancient roots, dating bac- through the mists of history to the mighty nglish -ings in their fortresses of power. ven then, the lowlysub6ect had his own castle where he was monarch of all he surveyed. 3his was his humble cottage from which he could bar hissovereign lord and all the forces of the Crown.

3hat right has endured through the ages albeit only in a few libertarian regimes. 3heir number, regrettably, continues to dwindle againstthe onslaughts of authoritarianism. =e are among the fortunate few, able again to en6oy this right after the ordeal of the past despotism.=e must cherish and protect it all the more now because it is li-e a prodigal son returning.

3hat right is guaranteed in the following provisions of /rticle "? of the )*(> Constitution4

0C. >. 3he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonablesearches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant orwarrant of arrest shall issue ecept upon probable cause to be determined by the 6udge, or such other responsibleofficer as may be authorized by law, after eamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesseshe may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

0C. D. #)$ 3he privacy of communication and cor9 respondence shag be inviolable ecept upon lawful order of thecourt, or when public safety and order require otherwise.

#'$ /ny evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in anyproceeding.

"nvo-ing these provisions, the petitioner claims he was the victim of an illegal search and seizure conducted by the military authorities.3he articles seized from him are sought to be used as evidence in his prosecution for illegal possession of firearms. He as-s that theiradmission be temporarily restrained #which we have$ and thereafter permanently en6oined.

3he challenged search warrant was issued by the respondent 6udge on May )2, )*@D. & 3he petitionerKs house was searched two dayslater but none of the articles listed in the warrant was discovered. ( However, the officers conducting the search found in the premisesone Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets which they confiscated. 3hey are now the bases of the charge against thepetitioner. 1

3o be valid, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause to be determined by the 6udge or some other authorized officerafter eamining the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. o less important, there must be a specific description of the placeto be searched and the things to be seized, to prevent arbitrary and indiscriminate use of the warrant. '

Probable cause was described by Justice scolin in Burgos %. C&ie- o- "ta-- 2 as referring to Bsuch facts and circumstances which wouldlead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the ob6ects sought in connectionwith the offense are in the place sought to be searched.B /s held in a long line of decisions, the probable cause must refer to only onespecific offense. 0

3he inclusion of the requirement for the Beamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produceBwas a refinement proposed by <elegate ?icente J. :rancisco in the)*>D Constitutional Convention. His purpose was the strengthening

of the guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures. /lthough the condition did not appear in the corresponding provision ofthe federa Constitution of the Enited 0tates which served as our model it was then already embodied in the Code of CriminalProcedure. evertheless, <elegate Jose P. ;aurel, Chairman of the Committee on the !ill of 1ights of that body, readily accepted theproposal and it was thereafter, following a brief debate, approved by the Convention. 3

"mplementing this requirement, the 1ules of Court provided in what was then 1ule )'+4

0C. D. 5;amination o- t&e appli!ant. A 3he municipal or city 6udge must, before issuing the warrant, personallyeamine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and ta-e their depositions inwriting, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him.

3he petitioner claims that no depositions were ta-en by the respondent 6udge in accordance with the above rule, but this is not entirelytrue. /s a matter of fact, depositions were ta-en of the complainantKs two witnesses in addition to the affidavit eecuted by them. / "t iscorrect to say, however, that the complainant himself was not sub6ected to a similar interrogation.

Commenting on this matter, the respondent 6udge declared4

3he truth is that when PC Capt. Mauro P. uinosa personally filed his application for a search warrant on May )2,)*@D, he appeared before me in the company of his two #'$ witnesses, smael Morada and Jesus 3ohilida, both ofwhom li-ewise presented to me their respective affidavits ta-en by Pat. Josue ?. ;ining, a police investigatorassigned to the PC9"P command at Camp Col. Maimo /bad. /s the application was not yet subscribed and swornto, " proceeded to eamine Captain uillosa on the contents thereof to ascertain, among others, if he -new andunderstood the same. /fterwards, he subscribed and swore to the same before me. -

!y his own account, an he did was question Captain uillosa on the contents of his affidavit only Bto ascertain, among others, if he-new and understood the same,B and only because Bthe application was not yet subscribed and swom to.B 3he suggestion is that hewould not have as-ed any questions at all if the affidavit had already been completed when it was submitted to him. "n any case, he didnot as- his own searching questions. He limited himself to the contents of the affidavit. He did not ta-e the applicantKs deposition inwriting and attach them to the record, together with the affidavit presented to him.

/s this Court held in Mata %. Ba/ona4



Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. 3he eamining Judge has to ta-edepositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he niay produce and attach them to the record. 0uchwritten deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the eistence or non9eistence of the probable cause, to hold liable for per6ury the person giving it if it wifl be found later that hisdeclarations are false.

=e, therefore, hold that the search warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of the Judge to conform with theessential requisites of ta-ing the depositions in writing and attaching them to the record, rendering the search warrantinvalid.

3he respondent 6udge also declared that he Bsaw no need to have applicant uillosaKs deposition ta-en considering that he wasapplying for a search warrant on the basis of the information provided by the aforenamed witnesses whose depositions asaforementioned had already been ta-en by the undersigned.B &

"n other words, the applicant was as-ing for the issuance of the search warrant on the basis of mere hearsay and not of informationpersonally -nown to him, as required by settled 6urisprudence.B ( 3he rationale of the requirement, of course, is to provide a ground fora prosecution for per6ury in case the applicantKs declarations are found to be false. His application, standing alone, was insufficient to 6ustify the issuance of the warrant sought. "t was therefore necessary for the witnesses themselves, by their own personal information,to establish the apphcantKs claims. 1

ven assuming then that it would have sufficed to ta-e the depositions only of the witnesses and not of the applicant himself, there isstill the question of the sufficiency of their depositions.

"t is aiomatic that the eamination must be probing and ehaustive, not merely routinary or pro7-orma, if the claimed probable cause isto be established. 3he eamining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must ma-e his own inquiry on theintent and 6ustification of the application. '

/ study of the depositions ta-en from witnesses smael Morada and Jesus 3ohilida, who both claimed to be Bintelligence informers,B

shows that they were in the main a mere restatement of their allegations in their affidavits, ecept that they were made in the form ofanswers to the questions put to them by the respondent 6udge. 0ignificantly, the meaningful remar- made by 3ohilida that they weresuspicious of the petitioner because he was a follower of the opposition candidate in the forthcoming election #a B;ecaristaB$ 2 did notecite the respondent 6udgeKs own suspicions. 3his should have put him on guard as to the motivations of the witnesses and alertedhim to possible misrepresentations from them.

3he respondent 6udge almost unquestioningly received the witnessesK statement that they saw eight men deliver arms to the petitionerin his house on May ', )*@D. 0 3his was supposedly done overtly, and 3ohilida said he saw everything through an open window of thehouse while he was near the gate. 3 He could even positively say that si of the weapons were.D caliber pistols and two were.>@caliber revolvers. /

&ne may well wonder why it did not occur to the respondent 6udge to ashow the witness could be so certain even as to the caliber ofthe guns, or how far he was from the window, or whether it was on the first floor or a second floor, or why his presence was not noticedat all, or if the acts related were really done openly, in the full view of the witnesses, considering that these acts were against the law.3hese would have been 6udicious questions but they were in6udiciously omitted. "nstead, the declarations of the witnesses were readilyaccepted and the search warrant sought was issued forthwith.

3he above9discussed defects have rendered the search warrant invalid. onetheless, the 0olicitor Feneral argues that whatever defectthere was, was waived when the petitioner voluntarily submitted to the search and manifested his conformity in writing. &-

=e do not agree. =hat we see here is pressure eerted by the military authorities, who practically coerced the petitioner to sign thesupposed waiver as a guaranty against a possible challenge later to the validity of the search they were conducting. Confronted withthe armed presence of the military and the presumptive authority of a 6udicial writ, the petitioner had no choice but to submit. 3his wasnot, as we held in a previous case, & the manifestation merely of our traditional :ilipino hospitality and respect for authority. Fiven therepressive atmosphere of the Marcos regime, there was here, as we see it, an intimidation that the petitioner could not resist.

3he respondents also argue that the Colt Magnum pistol and the eighteen have bullets seized from the petitioner were illegal perse and therefore could have been ta-en by the military authorities even without a warrant. Possession of the said articles, it is urged,was violative of P.<. )@++ and considered malum pro&iitum. Hence, the =egal articles could be ta-en even without a warrant.

Prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the search is valid. "n this case, it was not because4 )$ there was no valid searchwarrant7 and '$ absent such a warrant, the right thereto was not validly waived by the petitioner. "n short, the military officers who

entered the petitionerKs premises had no right to be there and therefore had no right either to seize the pistol and bullets.

"t does not follow that because an offense is malum pro&iitum, the sub6ect thereof is necessarily illegal per se.Motive is immaterialin mala pro&iita, but the sub6ects of this -ind of offense may not be summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. / searchwarrant is still necessary. "f the rule were otherwise, then the military authorities could have 6ust entered the premises and loo-ed forthe guns reportedly -ept by the petitioner without bothering to first secure a search warrant. 3he fact that they did bother to do soindicates that they themselves recognized the necessity of such a warrant for the seizure of the weapons the petitioner was suspectedof possessing.

"t is true that there are certain instances when a search may be validly made without warrant and articles may be ta-en validly as aresult of that search. :or eample, a warrantless search may be made incidental to a lawful arrest, && as when the person being arrestedis frished for weapons he may otherwise be able to use against the arresting officer. Motor cars may be inspected at borders to preventsmuggling of aliens and contraband &( and even in the interior upon a showing of probable cause. &1 ?essels and aircraft are alsotraditionally removed from the operation of the rule because of their mobility and their relative ease in fleeing the stateKs 6urisdiction. &' 3he individual may -nowingly agree to be searched or waive ob6ections to an illegal search. &2 /nd it has also been heldthat prohibited articles may be ta-en without warrant if they are open to eye and hand and the peace officer comes upon them

inadvertently. &0

Clearly, though, the instant case does not come under any of the accepted eceptions. 3he respondents cannot even claim that theystumbled upon the pistol and bullets for the fact is that these things were deliberately sought and were not in plain view when they wereta-en. Hence, the rule having been violated and no eception being applicable, the conclusion is that the petitionerKs pistol and bulletswere confiscated illegally and therefore are protected by the eclusionary principle.

"tone&ill %. 9io#no established this rule which was later epressly affirmed in the )*(> Constitution. =hile conceding that there may beoccasions when the criminal might be allowed to go free because Bthe constable has blundered,B Chief Justice Concepcion observedthat the eclusionary rule was nonetheless Bthe only practical means of enforcing the constitutional in6unctionB against abuse. 3hedecision cited Judge ;earned HandKs 6ustification that Bonly in case the prosecution which itself controls the seizing officials, -now that itcannot profit by their wrong, will the wrong be repressed. B



3he pistol and bullets cannot, of course, be used as evidence against the petitioner in the criminal action against him for illegalpossession of firearms. Pending resolution of that case, however, the said articles must remain in!ustodia legis.

:inally, it is true that the petitioner should have, before coming to this Court, filed a motion for the quashal of the search warrant by therespondent 6udge in accordance with the normal procedure. !ut as we said and did in !urgos, Bthis procedural flaw notwithstanding, weta-e cognizance of this petition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional issues raised. &3

=H1:&1, 0earch =arrant o. )9@D issued by the respondent 6udge on May )2, )*@D, is hereby declared null and void andaccordingly set aside. &ur restraining order of /ugust +,)*@, is made permanent. o costs.

0& &1<1<.

9uintero 4s. N!I 5Mar*os +ani<uation7

:acts4 /fter the epose of the petitioner, duardo uintero of the )st district of ;eyte in the )*() Con9con alleging that somedelegates, including him, in the Con9con are under the payroll of the first lady and then President Marcos, !" agents raided thehouses of the petitioner by virtue of the search warrant issued by the respondent Judge lias /suncion. 3he raid confiscated anamount of money amounting to >(*I.

3he said search warrant was base from the application of two persons. &ne is from the affidavit of Congressman /rtemio Mate, alsofrom )st district of ;eyte and an !" /gent 0amuel Castro, alleging that the petitioner committed the crime of bribery.

3he affidavit of the latter applicant however showed that he has no personal -nowledge about the allegations against the petitioner.

3he affidavit of the statements of the Congressman also shows that his allegations are anchored upon speculations.

o sufficient evidence is presented to the respondent 6udge.

"ssue4 =as there an establishment of the eistence of a probable cause

Held4 o. 3he allegations and the statements of the applicants are merely anchored on hearsay and speculations.

/s ingrained under 6urisprudence #1oan vs. Fonzales as cited$, in application for a search warrant, if based on hearsay, sannot,standing alone 6ustify the issuance of search warrant. 3hus, it is indispensable that the applicants should have personal -nowledge ofthe crime committed.

"n the case at bar, the deposition of the !" agent is based on hearsay in which only and anchored on the information given by Cong.Mata.

Moreover, the deposition of Cong. Mata cannot establish that he has a direct personal -nowledge of the alleged bribery of the petitionersince his affidavit shows that it is only based on speculation. 3he element of directness and definiteness is wanting so as to establishhis personal -nowledge. ot to mention, there is no concrete evidence that would support their accusation, so as to validly establishprobable cause.

"rregularities4

)$ Moreover, there is also irregularity in the printing of the search warrant, wherein the crime of bribery /rt ')2 of 1PC wassuperimposed by in-, which was originally /rt. '@'.

"n the case at bar, the search warrant presented was in the case of grave threats directed against the nephew of the petitioner#nephew$, thus, the confiscation of he money is not related to the articles seized.

'$ 3he search team also violated statutory guidelines for a lawful search since there is no members of the household present whileothers are searching the premises. 3hus it is planted and orchestrated search.

>$ /lso the respondents also violated the statutory guidelines that they should issue a detailed receipt of articles seized.

3he lifting of the respondent 6udge of the search warrant are null and void.

STONEHI"" 4 )IO=NO '2 0C1/ >@> C&CPC"&7 June )*, )*+(

NATURE

&riginal action in the 0C. Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, in6unction.

9Petitioners4 Harry 0. 0tonehill, 1obert P. !roo-s, John J. !roo-s and Iarl !ec-7 accused in certain deportation cases

91espondents9prosecutors4 <&J 0ec Jose =. <io-no, !" /cting <irector Jose ;u-ban, 0pecial Prosecutors Pedro <. Cenzon, fren ".Plana and Manuel ?illareal, Jr. and Manila City /sst. :iscal Maneses F. 1eyes

91epondents96udges4 Judge /mado 1oan of the Municipal #now City$ Court of Manila, Judge 1oman Cansino of the Municipal #nowCity$ Court of Manila, Judge Hermogenes Caluag of C:" 1izal uezon City !ranch, Judge ulogio Mencias of C:" 1izal, Pasig !ranch,and Judge <amian Jimenez of the Municipal #now City$ Court of uezon City.

6ACTS

9Epon application of the respondents9prosecutors, respondents96udges issued a total of D' search warrants against petitioners and5orthe corporations of which they were officers, directed to the any peace officer, to search the persons above9named and5or the premisesof their offices, warehouses and5or residences, and to seize and ta-e possession of >oo#s o- a!!ounts, -inan!ial re!ords, %ou!&ers,



!orresponden!e, re!eipts, ledgers, <ournals, port-olios, !redit <ournals, t/pe'riters, and ot&er do!uments and8or papers s&o'ing allusiness transa!tions in!luding disursements re!eipts, alan!e s&eets and pro-it and loss statements and Boins ?!igarette'rappers@ as Bthe sub6ect of the offense7 stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense,B or Bused or intended to be used asthe means of committing the offenseB of Bviolation of Central !an- ;aws, 3ariff and Customs ;aws, "nternal 1evenue #Code$ and the1evised Penal Code.B

Petitioners claim that the aforementioned search warrants are null and void, as contravening the Constitution and the 1ules of Court7that the searches and seizures made in pursuance thereof are illegal7 and that evidences obtained therein are consequentlyinadmissible.

Respondents/prosecutors’ comments #)$ that the contested search warrants are valid and have been issued in accordance with law7#'$ that the defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by petitionersK consent7 and #>$ that, in any event, the effects seized areadmissible in evidence against herein petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and seizures.

Procedure:

9March '', )*+'4 0C issued the writ of preliminary in6unction prayed for in the petition.

9June '*, )*+'4 the writ was partially lifted or dissolved, insofar as the papers, documents and things seized from the offices of thecorporations above mentioned are concerned7 but, the in6unction was maintained as regards the papers, documents and things foundand seized in the residences of petitioners.

NOTE@ 3he ponencia splits the documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in question into two#'$ ma6or groups4 #a$ those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations, and #b$ those found and seized in theresidences of petitioners.

ISSUES

). /s regards the first group, =& petitioners have a cause of action

'. /s regards the second group, =& the search warrants in question, and the searches and seizures made under the authoritythereof, are valid #and, =& said documents, papers and things may be used in evidence against petitioners$

HE")

). &.

93he legality of a seizure can be contested onl/ by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the ob6ection to anunlawful search and seizure is purel/ personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. 9Petitioners may not validly ob6ect to the use inevidence against them of the documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premises of the corporations, since the right toob6ect to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs e;!lusi%el/ to the corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and maynot be invo-ed by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity.

'. &.

9)*> Constitution #/rt. """, 0ec. ), par. >$ provides #a$ that no warrant shall issue but upon proale cause, to be determined by the 6udge in the manner set forth in said provision7 and #b$ that the warrant shall parti!ularl/ describe the things to be seized.

90earch warrants, issued upon applications stating that the natural and 6uridical person therein named had committed offenses asabstract as Bviolation of Central !an- ;aws, 3ariff and Customs ;aws, "nternal 1evenue #Code$ and 1evised Penal CodeB do not satisfythe constitutional requirements because no spe!i-i! offense had been alleged in said applications. "t was impossile for the 6udges whoissued the warrants to have found the eistence of probable cause, which presupposes the introduction of competent proof that theparty against whom it is sought has performed parti!ular acts, or committed spe!i-i! omissions in violation of a given penal provision.

9Feneral search warrants are outlawed because they place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication andcorrespondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.

93o prevent the issuance of general search warrants, 0C amended 0ec. > of 1ule )'' of the former 1ules of Court by providing in the1evised 1ules of Court that Bno search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.B

90earch warrants authorizing the seizure of boo-s of accounts and records pertaining to all usiness transa!tions of petitioners herein,regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal contravene the eplicit command of the !ill of 1ights that the things to beseized should be parti!ularl/ described and defeat its ma6or ob6ective of eliminating general warrants.

90C resolved to adopt the doctrine in Mapp % 6&io #)*+)$ and to finally abandon the )*D@ ruling in Mon!ado %s. 4eoples Court , @2Phil. ).

?&e latter !ase ?!iting Wigmore@ &eld t&at illegall/ sei$ed e%iden!e is admissile, as long as it is rele%ant, ut 'it&out pre<udi!e to t&e!riminal liailit/ o- t&e pea!e o--i!ers '&o made t&e sei$ure, -or %iolation o- domi!ile or under an/ ot&er pro%ision o- t&e 4enal Code.Justi!es 4er-e!to, Beng$on, Briones D 4aras dissented -rom t&e ma<orit/ opinion. EmargeE@

73he eclusionary rule is t&e onl/ pra!ti!al means o- en-or!ing t&e !onstitutional in<un!tion against unreasonable searches andseizures.

93he non9eclusionary rule is contrary, not only to the letter, but also, to the spirit of the constitutional in6unction against unreasonablesearches and seizures. "f there is competent evidence to establish probable cause of the commission of a given crime by the party

against whom the warrant is intended, then there is no reason why the applicant should not comply with the requirements of thefundamental law. "f he has no such evidence, then it is not possile for the Judge to find that there is probable cause, and, hence, no 6ustification for the issuance of the warrant. 3he only possible eplanation #not 6ustification$ for its issuance is the necessity of -is&ingevidence of the commission of a crime. !ut, then, this fishing epedition is indicative of the absence of evidence to establish a probablecause.

Foreign re-eren!es !ited to support t&is !ontention

). Judge ;earned Hand4 U&nly in case the prosecution which itself controls the seizing officials, -nows that it !annot pro-it / t&eir'rong 'ill t&at 'rong e repressed.

2. Wee#s % 1" #)*)D$4 U3he efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not tobe aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in theirembodiment in the fundamental law of the land.R



. Mapp % 6&io #)*+)$4 Uall evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority,inadmissible in a 0tate court.

T=ithout that rule the freedom from state invasions of privacy would be so ephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual neuswith the freedom from all brutish means of coercing evidence as not to permit this CourtKs high regard as a freedom Uimplicit in theconcept of ordered liberty.R

T3he eclusion of the evidence which an accused had been forced to give by reason of the unlawful seizure is the most importantconstitutional privilege.

T3he purpose of the eclusionary rule to Bis to deter 99 to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively availableway 99 by removing the incentive to disregard it.B

T=e can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise, to be revocable at the whim of any police officer who, in the name oflaw enforcement itself, chooses to suspend its en6oyment. &ur decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the individual no morethan that which the Constitution guarantees him to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and,to the courts, that 6udicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of 6ustice.

Obiter

9"n their M:1, petitioners further alleged possession of and control over the records, papers and effects found in the offices of thecorporation, and the alleged BpersonalB nature thereof.

90C disposed of them by saying that this new theory was advanced, not in their petition or amended petition, but in the M1. /t any rate,it is best to leave the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future.

Dispositive =rits granted in part and denied in part7 M1 denied.

SEPARATE OPINION

CASTRO *on*urring and dissentingK

91easoning that the petitioners have not in their pleadings satisfactorily demonstrated that they have legal standing to move for thesuppression of the documents, papers and effects seized in the places other than the three residences adverted to above, the opinionwritten by the Chief Justice re-rains from e;pressl/ declaring as null and void the such warrants served at such other places and asillegal the searches and seizures made therein, and leaves Bthe matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future.B

9"t is with this position that Justice Castro is not in accord.

9He says that All the search warrants, without eception, in this case are admittedly general, blan-et and roving warrants and aretherefore admittedly and indisputably outlawed by the Constitution7 and the searches and seizures made were therefore unlawful.

9He argues that assuming that the petitioners have no legal standing to as- for the suppression of the papers, things and effects seized

from places other than their residences, this cannot in any manner affect, alter or otherwise modify the intrinsic nullity of the searchwarrants and the intrinsic illegality of the searches and seizures made thereunder. =hether or not the petitioners possess legalstanding the said warrants are void and remain void, and the searches and seizures were illegal and remain illegal.

9He insists that, upon the pleadings submitted to 0C, the petitioners have the requisite legal standing to move for the suppression andreturn of the documents, papers and effects that were seized from places other than their family residences.

90ince our constitutional provision on searches and seizures was derived almost %eratim from the :ourth /mendment to the Enited0tates Constitution, in the many years of 6udicial construction and interpretation of the said constitutional provision, our courts haveinvariably regarded as doctrinal the pronouncement made on the :ourth /mendment by federal courts, especially the :ederal 0upremeCourt and the :ederal Circuit Courts of /ppeals.

93he E.0. doctrines and pertinent cases on standing to move for the suppression or return of documents, papers and effects which arethe fruits of an unlawful search and seizure, may be summarized as follows4

#a$ ownership of documents, papers and effects gives Bstanding7B

#b$ ownership and5or control or possession X actual or constructive 99 of premises searched gives BstandingB7 and

#c$ the Baggrieved personB doctrine where the search warrant and the sworn application for search warrant are BprimarilyB directedsolely and eclusively against the Baggrieved person,B gives Bstanding.B

9/n eamination of the search warrants in this case will readily show that, ecepting three, all were directed against the petitionerspersonally. "n some of them, the petitioners were named personally, followed by the designation, Bthe President and5or FeneralManagerB of the particular corporation. 3he three warrants ecepted named three corporate defendants. !ut theBoffice5house5warehouse5premisesB mentioned in the said three warrants were also the same as those declared to be owned by orunder the control of the petitioners in all the other search warrants.

93hus, the petitioners have full standing to move for the quashing of all the warrants regardless whether these were directed againstresidences in the narrow sense of the word, as long as the documents were personal papers of the petitioners or #to the etent that theywere corporate papers$ were held by them in a personal capacity or under their personal control.

90C, at all events, should order the return to the petitioners all personal and pri%ate papers and effects seized, no matter where these

were seized, whether from their residences or corporate offices or any other place or places. 3he un!ontradi!ted sworn statements ofthe petitioners in their, various pleadings submitted to this Court indisputably show that amongst the things seized from the corporateoffices and other places were personal and pri%ate papers and effects belonging to the petitioners.

9"f there should be any categorization of the documents, papers and things which where the ob6ects of the unlawful searches andseizures, " submit that the grouping should be4 #a$ personal or pri%ate papers of the petitioners, and #b$ purely !orporate papersbelonging to corporations.

&-t; Century 6oD 4s. CA



:acts4 /fter surveillance and investigation, petitioner, with the !" apllied for three separate search warrants against the video outletsowned by private respondents, !arretto et al, and was subsequently granted and issued by the lower court.

3he applicants did not present the master tapes and the pirated tapes upon their application of search warrant. "nstead, only thedeposition of two !" witnesses served as the basis for the eistence of probable cause.

0ubsequently, the lower court lifted the three issued search warrants in the ground that the articles seized, which were still under thecustody of !", could not be a basis for any criminal prosecution.

"ssue4 =as there an establishment of Uprobable causeR for the issuance of search warrant against the respondent

Held4 one. 3he probable cause is wanting in the issuance of the search warrant.

/s ingrained by law and 6urisprudence, probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonablydiscreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the ob6ects sought in connection with the offensesare in the place sought to be searched.

3he eistence of probable cause requires that there should be a personal -nowledge by the complainant and witnesses of the factsupon which the issuance of a search warrant may be 6ustified.

"n the case at bar, the lower court lifted the issued search warrant on the ground of the discovery that the !" witnesses does not havepersonal -nowledge that the crime of Piracy has been committed. 3he deposition of such witnesses cannot provide a sufficienteistence of probable cause necessary for the issuance of search warrant.

Moreover, in accordance with P< D* #/nti :ilm Piracy$, the essence of such law is the similarity of the pirated and the copyrightedwor-. 3hus, the applicants must present the court the copyrighted films and compare them with the evidence of the video tapesallegedly pirated to determine whether or not the crim has been violated.

"n the case at bar, the applicants does not provide any evidences *master tapes and pirated tapes$ that would convince the 6udge thatviolation of P< D* has been committed, and therefore for the eistence of probable cause.

3he articles included in the search warrant is couched in general term, ma-ing it a general warrant which is prohibited under theConstitution.

ote4 0earch and 0eizure, guaranteed rights.

Protects a citizen against unreasonable searchers invasion of his privacy and liberty as to his person, houses, papers and effects. 3heprivacy of a person must not be disturbed ecept in case of overriding social need and only under stringent procedural safeguards.

3hus, the government so as not to ma-e arrest, search and seizure unreasonable should strictly follow constitutional and statutoryguidelines.

CO"UM!IA PICTURES INC. 4 CA &(0 SCRA (20 5//17K

ature4 Petitions for review on certiorari of the decision of the C/.

:acts4

( /pril )**@4 !" filed with the 13C of Pasig > applications for 0= against private respondent #3ube ?ideo nterprises X dward C.Cham7 !looming 1ose 3ape Center X Ma. Ja6orie 3. Ey7 ?ideo Channel X ;ydia abong$ charging them with violations of 0ec. + of P<D* #<ecree on the Protection of "ntellectual Property$ as amended by P< )*@@.

13C Judge /ustria consolidated the > applications and conducted a 6oint hearing where she made a personal eamination of the

applicant #!" /gent 1eyes$ and his witnesses.

:inding 6ust and probable cause, Judge /ustria issued the search warrants.

Private 1espondents filed their UMotion to uashR the 0= citing as grounds that there was no probable cause7 the films in question arenot protected by P< )*@@ in that they were never registered in the ational ;ibrary as a condition precedent to the availment of theprotection7 the Motion Picture /ssociation of /merica have not proven nor established their ownership over the films7 etc.

Judge /ustria reversed her former stand initially finding probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants and ordered theirquashal4

& Private complainants uncertain of their ownership over the titles7

& Complainants did not comply with the requirement that master tapes should be presented during the application for searchwarrants7

& Complainants failed to comply with the deposit and registration requirements of P< D* as amended by P< )*@@.

Judge /ustria also ordered the return of the items seized by virtue of the warrants.

C/ affirmed the quashal of the 0=s.

"ssue4 =& the 0=s were issued with probable cause. &

1atio4

!/0"C 1E"1M3 for the validity of search warrants #in cases of this nature$ is the presentation of the master tapes of thecopyrighted films from which the pirated films are supposed to have been copied #'2th Century :o :ilm Corp. vs. C/, )+D 0C1/ +$.



3he essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported pirated wor-s to thecopyrighted wor-. Hence, the applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidence ofthe video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former. 3his lin-age of thecopyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to theeistence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

/ccording to the C/, in which the 0C concurs4

"t is not correct to say that Bthe basic factB to be proven to establish probable cause in the instant cases is not the BunauthorizedtransferB of a motion picture that has been recorded but the Bsale, lease, or distribution of pirated video tapes of copyrighted films.B

"n applying for the search warrants the !" charged violation of the entire provisions of 0ection + of P.<. o. D* as amended byP.<.o. )*@@. 3his included not only the sale, lease or distribution of pirated tapes but also the transfer or causing to be transferred ofany sound recording or motion picture or other audio visual wor-.

!ut even assuming, as appellants argue, that only the sale, lease, or distribution of pirated video tapes is involved, the fact remains thatthere is need to establish probable cause that the tapes being sold, leased or distributed are pirated tapes, hence the issue revertsbac- to the question of whether there was unauthorized transfer, directly or indirectly, of a sound recording or motion picture or otheraudio visual wor- that has been recorded

Petitions denied.

PEOP"E G. JU)$E ESTRE""A ESTRA)A $.R. NO. &112Motion for the return of seized goods on the ground that the warrant was illegal. :urther, the seized medicines were found genuine butwere only illegally imported.

H;<4

ven if the medicines were genuine if the seller has no permit from the appropriate government agency, the drugs or medicines cannotbe returned although the search warrant was declared illegal.

case digests, case digests of supreme court decisions, case digests Philippines, mobile phone deals, laptop computers, gadgets, freelegal opinion, online 6obs, best law firms in Mindanao

6RANCISCO $. JOA9UIN, JR., and !J PRO)UCTIONS, INC., <etitioners, 4s. 6RAN="IN )RI"ON $A!RIE" #OSA, ?I""IAM

ESPOSO, 6E"IPE ME)INA, JR., and CASEY 6RANCISCO, res<ondents. $.R. No. -3/12. January &3, ///K

MEN)O#A, J.@

3his is a petition for certiorari. Petitioners see- to annul the resolution of the <epartment of Justice, dated /ugust )', )**', in CriminalCase o. 9*'9'(@D, entitled UFabriel %osa, et al. v. City Prosecutor of uezon City and :rancisco Joaquin, Jr.,R and its resolution,dated <ecember >, )**', denying petitioner JoaquinSs motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner !J Productions, "nc. #!JP"$ is the holder5grantee of Certificate of Copyright o. M*'', dated January '@, )*(), of 1hoda andMe, a dating game show aired from )*(2 to )*((.

&n June '@, )*(>, petitioner !JP" submitted to the ational ;ibrary an addendum to its certificate of copyright specifying the showSsformat and style of presentation.

&n July )D, )**), while watching television, petitioner :rancisco Joaquin, Jr., president of !JP", saw on 1P Channel * an episode of"tSs a <ate, which was produced by "; Productions, "nc. #";$. &n July )@, )**), he wrote a letter to private respondent Fabriel M.%osa, president and general manager of ";, informing %osa that !JP" had a copyright to 1hoda and Me and demanding that ";

discontinue airing "tSs a <ate.

"n a letter, dated July )*, )**), private respondent %osa apologized to petitioner Joaquin and requested a meeting to discuss apossible settlement. ";, however, continued airing "tSs a <ate, prompting petitioner Joaquin to send a second letter on July ', )**) inwhich he reiterated his demand and warned that, if "; did not comply, he would endorse the matter to his attorneys for proper legalaction.

Meanwhile, private respondent %osa sought to register ";Ss copyright to the first episode of "tSs a <ate for which it was issued by theational ;ibrary a certificate of copyright on /ugust )D, )**).

Epon complaint of petitioners, an information for violation of P.<. o. D* was filed against private respondent %osa together with certainofficers of 1P Channel *, namely, =illiam sposo, :elipe Medina, and Casey :rancisco, in the 1egional 3rial Court of uezon Citywhere it was doc-eted as Criminal Case o. *'9'(@D and assigned to !ranch )2D thereof. However, private respondent %osa soughta review of the resolution of the /ssistant City Prosecutor before the <epartment of Justice.

&n /ugust )', )**', respondent 0ecretary of Justice :ran-lin M. <rilon reversed the /ssistant City ProsecutorSs findings and directed

him to move for the dismissal of the case against private respondents. G)Petitioner Joaquin filed a motion for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by respondent 0ecretary of Justice on <ecember >,)**'. Hence, this petition. Petitioners contend that4

). 3he public respondent gravely abused his discretion amounting to lac- of 6urisdiction when he invo-ed non9presentation of themaster tape as being fatal to the eistence of probable cause to prove infringement, despite the fact that private respondents neverraised the same as a controverted issue.

'. 3he public respondent gravely abused his discretion amounting to lac- of 6urisdiction when he arrogated unto himself thedetermination of what is copyrightable 9 an issue which is eclusively within the 6urisdiction of the regional trial court to assess in aproper proceeding.

!oth public and private respondents maintain that petitioners failed to establish the eistence of probable cause due to their failure topresent the copyrighted master videotape of 1hoda and Me. 3hey contend that petitioner !JP"Ss copyright covers only a specific



episode of 1hoda and Me and that the formats or concepts of dating game shows are not covered by copyright protection under P. <.o. D*.

on9/ssignment of rror

Petitioners claim that their failure to submit the copyrighted master videotape of the television show 1hoda and Me was not raised inissue by private respondents during the preliminary investigation and, therefore, it was error for the 0ecretary of Justice to reverse theinvestigating prosecutorSs finding of probable cause on this ground.

/ preliminary investigation falls under the authority of the state prosecutor who is given by law the power to direct and control criminalactions.G' He is, however, sub6ect to the control of the 0ecretary of Justice. 3hus, 1ule ))', ND of the 1evised 1ules of CriminalProcedure, provides4

0C. D. <uty of investigating fiscal. 9 "f the investigating fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare theresolution and corresponding information. He shall certify under oath that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, haspersonally eamined the complainant and his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committedand that the accused is probably guilty thereof, that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted againsthim and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. &therwise, he shall recommend dismissal of the complaint.

"n either case, he shall forward the records of the case to the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor within five #$ days fromhis resolution. 3he latter shall ta-e appropriate action thereon within ten #)2$ days from receipt thereof, immediately informing theparties of said action.

o complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the prior written authority or approval of theprovincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor.

=here the investigating assistant fiscal recommends the dismissal of the case but his findings are reversed by the provincial or cityfiscal or chief state prosecutor on the ground that a probable cause eists, the latter may, by himself, file the corresponding informationagainst the respondent or direct any other assistant fiscal or state prosecutor to do so, without conducting another preliminaryinvestigation.

"f upon petition by a proper party, the 0ecretary of Justice reverses the resolution of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor,he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary investigation or todismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information.

"n reviewing resolutions of prosecutors, the 0ecretary of Justice is not precluded from considering errors, although unassigned, for thepurpose of determining whether there is probable cause for filing cases in court. He must ma-e his own finding of probable cause andis not confined to the issues raised by the parties during preliminary investigation. Moreover, his findings are not sub6ect to reviewunless shown to have been made with grave abuse.

&pinion of the 0ecretary of Justice

Petitioners contend, however, that the determination of the question whether the format or mechanics of a show is entitled to copyrightprotection is for the court, and not the 0ecretary of Justice, to ma-e. 3hey assail the following portion of the resolution of the respondent0ecretary of Justice4

G3he essence of copyright infringement is the copying, in whole or in part, of copyrightable materials as defined and enumerated in0ection ' of P<. o. D*. /part from the manner in which it is actually epressed, however, the idea of a dating game show is, in theopinion of this &ffice, a non9copyrightable material. "deas, concepts, formats, or schemes in their abstract form clearly do not fall withinthe class of wor-s or materials susceptible of copyright registration as provided in P<. o. D*.G> #mphasis added.$

"t is indeed true that the question whether the format or mechanics of petitionersS television show is entitled to copyright protection is alegal question for the court to ma-e. 3his does not, however, preclude respondent 0ecretary of Justice from ma-ing a preliminarydetermination of this question in resolving whether there is probable cause for filing the case in court. "n doing so in this case, he didnot commit any grave error.

Presentation of Master 3ape

Petitioners claim that respondent 0ecretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion in ruling that the master videotape should havebeen presented in order to determine whether there was probable cause for copyright infringement. 3hey contend that '2th Century:o :ilm Corporation v. Court of /ppeals,GD on which respondent 0ecretary of Justice relied in reversing the resolution of the

investigating prosecutor, is inapplicable to the case at bar because in the present case, the parties presented sufficient evidence whichclearly establish Ulin-ages between the copyrighted show W1hoda and Me S and the infringing 3? show W"tSs a <ate.SRG

3he case of '2th Century :o :ilm Corporation involved raids conducted on various videotape outlets allegedly selling or renting outUpiratedR videotapes. 3he trial court found that the affidavits of !" agents, given in support of the application for the search warrant,were insufficient without the master tape. /ccordingly, the trial court lifted the search warrants it had previously issued against thedefendants. &n petition for review, this Court sustained the action of the trial court and ruled4G+

3he presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were allegedly copied, was necessary for thevalidity of search warrants against those who have in their possession the pirated films. 3he petitionerSs argument to the effect that thepresentation of the master tapes at the time of application may not be necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature andnot determinative of whether or not a probable cause eists to 6ustify the issuance of the search warrants is not meritorious. 3he courtcannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master tapes that it owns.

3he application for search warrants was directed against video tape outlets which allegedly were engaged in the unauthorized sale andrenting out of copyrighted films belonging to the petitioner pursuant to P.<. D*.

3he essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported pirated wor-s to thecopyrighted wor-. Hence, the applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidenceof the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former. 3his lin-age of thecopyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to theeistence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

3his ruling was qualified in the later case of Columbia Pictures, "nc. v. Court of /ppealsG( in which it was held4

"n fine, the supposed pronunciamento in said case regarding the necessity for the presentation of the master tapes of the copyrightedfilms for the validity of search warrants should at most be understood to merely serve as a guidepost in determining the eistence ofprobable cause in copyright infringement cases where there is doubt as to the true neus between the master tape and the piratedcopies. /n ob6ective and careful reading of the decision in said case could lead to no other conclusion than that said directive washardly intended to be a sweeping and infleible requirement in all or similar copyright infringement cases. . . .G@



"n the case at bar, during the preliminary investigation, petitioners and private respondents presented written descriptions of the formatsof their respective televisions shows, on the basis of which the investigating prosecutor ruled4

/s may Gbe gleaned from the evidence on record, the substance of the television productions complainantSs U1H&</ /< MR and%osaSs U"3S0 / </3R is that two matches are made between a male and a female, both single, and the two couples are treated to anight or two of dining and5or dancing at the epense of the show. 3he ma6or concepts of both shows is the same. /ny differenceappear mere variations of the ma6or concepts.

3hat there is an infringement on the copyright of the show U1H&</ /< MR both in content and in the eecution of the videopresentation are established because respondentSs U"3S0 / </3R is practically an eact copy of complainantSs U1H&</ /< MRbecause of substantial similarities as follows, to wit4

U1H&</ /< MR U"3S0 / </3R

0et " 0et "

a. Enmarried participant a. same

of one gender #searcher$ appears on one side of a divider, while three #>$ unmarried participants of the other gender are on theother side of the divider. 3his arrangement is done to ensure that the searcher does not see the searchees.

b. 0earcher as-s a question b. same

to be answered by each of the searchees. 3he purpose is to determine who among the searchees is the most compatiblewith the searcher.

c. 0earcher speculates on the c. same

match to the searchee.

d. 0election is made by the d. 0election is use of compute #sic$ methods, based on the

or by the way questions are answer of the

answered, or similar methods. 0earchees.

0et ' 0et '

0ame as above with the genders same

of the searcher and searchees interchanged.G*

Petitioners assert that the format of 1hoda and Me is a product of ingenuity and s-ill and is thus entitled to copyright protection. "t istheir position that the presentation of a point9by9point comparison of the formats of the two shows clearly demonstrates the neusbetween the shows and hence establishes the eistence of probable cause for copyright infringement. 0uch being the case, they didnot have to produce the master tape.

3o begin with, the format of a show is not copyrightable. 0ection ' of P.<. o. D*,G)2 otherwise -nown as the <C1 &"3;;C3E/; P1&P138, enumerates the classes of wor- entitled to copyright protection, to wit4

0ection '. 3he rights granted by this <ecree shall, from the moment of creation, subsist with respect to any of the following classes ofwor-s4

#/$ !oo-s, including composite and cyclopedic wor-s, manuscripts, directories, and gazetteers7

#!$ Periodicals, including pamphlets and newspapers7

#C$ ;ectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery7

#<$ ;etters7

#$ <ramatic or dramatico9musical compositions7 choreographic wor-s and entertainments in dumb shows, the acting form of which isfied in writing or otherwise7

#:$ Musical compositions, with or without words7

#F$ =or-s of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography, and other wor-s of art7 models or designs for wor-s ofart7

#H$ 1eproductions of a wor- of art7

#"$ &riginal ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not patentable, and other wor-s of applied art7

#J$ Maps, plans, s-etches, and charts7

#I$ <rawings or plastic wor-s of a scientific or technical character7

#;$ Photographic wor-s and wor-s produced by a process analogous to photography7 lantern slides7

#M$ Cinematographic wor-s and wor-s produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for ma-ing audio9visualrecordings7

#$ Computer programs7

#&$ Prints, pictorial illustrations advertising copies, labels, tags, and bo wraps7

#P$ <ramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgements, arrangements and other alterations of literary, musical or artistic wor-s or

of wor-s of the Philippine government as herein defined, which shall be protected as provided in 0ection @ of this <ecree.#$ Collections of literary, scholarly, or artistic wor-s or of wor-s referred to in 0ection * of this <ecree which by reason of the selectionand arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations, the same to be protected as such in accordance with 0ection @ ofthis <ecree.

#1$ &ther literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic wor-s.

3his provision is substantially the same as N)(' of the "3;;C3E/; P1&P138 C&< &: 3H PH";"PP"0 #1./. o. @'*>$.G)) 3he format or mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of protected wor-s in N' of P.<. o. D*. :or this reason, theprotection afforded by the law cannot be etended to cover them.

Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. "t is a new or independent right granted by the statute, and notsimply a pre9eisting right regulated by the statute. !eing a statutory grant, the rights are only such as the statute confers, and may beobtained and en6oyed only with respect to the sub6ects and by the persons, and on terms and conditions specified in the statute.G)'



0ince . . . copyright in published wor-s is purely a statutory creation, a copyright may be obtained only for a wor- falling within thestatutory enumeration or description.G)>

1egardless of the historical viewpoint, it is authoritatively settled in the Enited 0tates that there is no copyright ecept that which isboth created and secured by act of Congress . . . .G)D

P.<. o. D*, N', in enumerating what are sub6ect to copyright, refers to finished wor-s and not to concepts. 3he copyright does notetend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which itis described, eplained, illustrated, or embodied in such wor-.G) 3hus, the new "3;;C3E/; P1&P138 C&< &: 3HPH";"PP"0 provides4

0ec. )(. Enprotected 0ub6ect Matter. 9 otwithstanding the provisions of 0ections )(' and )(>, no protection shall etend, under this

law, to any idea, procedure, system, method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data as such, even if they areepressed, eplained, illustrated or embodied in a wor-7 news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mereitems of press information7 or any official tet of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof.

=hat then is the sub6ect matter of petitionersS copyright 3his Court is of the opinion that petitioner !JP"Ss copyright covers audio9visualrecordings of each episode of 1hoda and Me, as falling within the class of wor-s mentioned in P.<. D*, N'#M$, to wit4

Cinematographic wor-s and wor-s produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for ma-ing audio9visualrecordings7

3he copyright does not etend to the general concept or format of its dating game show. /ccordingly, by the very nature of the sub6ectof petitioner !JP"Ss copyright, the investigating prosecutor should have the opportunity to compare the videotapes of the two shows.

Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows is insufficient7 the presentation of the master videotapein evidence was indispensable to the determination of the eistence of probable cause. /s aptly observed by respondent 0ecretary ofJustice4

/ television show includes more than mere words can describe because it involves a whole spectrum of visuals and effects, video andaudio, such that no similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely describing the general copyright5format of both dating gameshows.G)+

=H1:&1, the petition is hereby <"0M"00<.

0& &1<1<.

Pa<er Industries Cor<oration of t;e P;ii<<ines 4. Asun*ion May )*, )***ature4 Petition for certiorari and prohibitionPonente4 Panganiban, J.

:/C304

!efore us is a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying for #)$ the nullification of 0earch =arrant o. (** #*$ and the &rders datedMarch '>, )**> and /ugust >, )**, issued by the 1egional 3rial Court #13C$, !ranch )2D, of uezon City7 and #'$ the issuance oftemporary restraining order #31&$ or an in6unction against 0tate Prosecutor ;eo !. <acera """, ordering him to desist proceeding with "0o. *9)+(

&n January ', )**, Police Chief "nspector apoleon !. Pascua applied for a search warrant before the said 13C of uezon City,staring4

). 3hat the management of Paper "ndustries Corporation of the Philippines, located at P"C&P compound, is in possession or haGs inGits control high powered firearms, ammunitions, eplosives, which are the sub6ect of the offense, or used or intended to be used incommitting the offense, and which . . . are Gbeing -ept and concealGed in the premises described7

'. 3hat a 0earch =arrant should be issued to enable any agent of the law to ta-e possession and bring to the described properties

/fter propounding several questions to !acolod, Judge Maimiano C. /suncion issued the contested search warrant.

&n :ebruary D, )**, the police enforced the search warrant at the P"C&P compound and seized a number of firearms and eplosives.

!elieving that the warrant was invalid and the search unreasonable, the petitioners filed a BMotion to uashB before the trial court.0ubsequently, they also filed a B0upplemental Pleading to the Motion to uashB and a BMotion to 0uppress vidence.B &n March '>,)**, the 13C issued the first contested &rder which denied petitionersK motions. &n /ugust >, )**, the trial court rendered itssecond contested &rder denying petitionersK Motion for 1econsideration.

"00E4 =& the search warrant issued was valid

H;<4 =H1:&1, the instant petition for !ertiorari and prohibition is hereby F1/3< and 0earch =arrant o. (** #*$accordingly declared E;; and ?&"<. 3he temporary restraining order issued by this Court on &ctober '>, )** is hereby M/<P1M/3. o pronouncement as to costs.



1/3"&4

3he fundamental right against unreasonable and searches and seizures and the basic conditions for the issuance of a search warrantare laid down in 0ection ', /rticle """ of the )*@( Constitution.

3he requisites of a valid search warrant are4 #)$ probable cause is present7 #'$ such presence is determined personally by the 6udge7 #>$the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally eamined by the 6udge, in writing and under oath or

affirmation7 #D$ the applicant and the witnesses testify on facts personally -nown to them7 and #$ the warrant specifically describes theplace to be searched and the things to be seized.# 0ection > and D, 1ule )'+ of the 1ules of Court$

"n the present case, the search warrant is invalid because #)$ the trail court failed to eamine personally the complainant and the otherdeponents7 #'$ 0P&> Cicero !acolod, who appeared during the hearing for the issuance or the search warrant, had no personal-nowledge that petitioners were not licensed to possess the sub6ect firearms7 and #>$ the place to be searched was not described withparticularity.

No 4ersonal 5;amination o- t&e Witnesses

Chief "nspector PascuaKs application for a search warrant was supported by #)$ the 6oint <eposition of 0P&> Cicero 0. !acolod and0P&' Cecilio 3. Moriro, #'$ a summary of information and #>$ supplementary statements of Mario nad and :elipe Moreno. cept forPascua and !acolod however, none of the aforementioned witnesses and policemen appeared before the trial court. Moreover, the

applicantKs participation in the hearing for the issuance of the search warrant consisted only of introducing =itness !acolod.

3he trial 6udge failed to propound questions, let alone probing questions, to the applicant and to his witnesses other than !acolod.&bviously, His Honor relied mainly on their affidavits. 3his Court has frowned on this practice in this language4

Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. 3he eamining Judge has to ta-edepositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may procedure and attach them to the record. 0uchwritten deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the eistence or non9eistence of the probable cause, to hold liable for per6ury the person giving it if it will be found later that hisdeclarations are false.

Ba!olods estimon/ 4ertained Not to Fa!ts 4ersonall/ no'n to 0im

=hen questioned by the 6udge, !acolod stated merely that he believed that the P"C&P security guards had no license to possess thesub6ect firearms. 3his, however, does not meet the requirement that a witness must testify on his personal -nowledge, not belief.

4arti!ularit/ o- t&e 4la!e to Be "ear!&ed

"n view of the manifest ob6ective of the against unreasonable search, the Constitution to be searched only to those described in thewarrant. 3hus, this Court has held that Bthis constitutional right Gis the embodiment of a spiritual concept4 the belief that to value theprivacy of home and person and to afford it constitutional protection against the long reach of government is no less than to valuehuman dignity, and that his privacy must not be disturbed ecept in case of overriding social need, and then only under stringentprocedural safeguards.B /dditionally, the requisite of particularity is related to the probable cause requirement in that, at least undersome circumstances, the lac- of a more specific description will ma-e it apparent that there has not been a sufficient showing to themagistrate that the described items are to be found in particular place.

"n the present case, the assailed search warrant failed to describe the place with particularly. "t simply authorizes a search of Btheaforementioned premises,B but it did not specify such premises

"ei$ed Firearms and 5;plosi%es Inadmissile in 5%iden!e

!ecause the search warrant was procured in violation of the Constitution and the 1ules of Court, all the firearms, eplosives and othermaterials seized were Binadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.B /s the Court noted in an earlier case, the eclusion of

unlawfully seized evidence was Bthe only practical means of enforcing the constitutional in6unction against unreasonable searches andseizures.B ?erily, they are the Bfruits of the poisonous tree.B =ithout this eclusionary rule, the constitutional right Bwould be soephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual neus with the freedom from all brutish means evidence means of coercingevidence . . ..B

PITA GS. COURT O6 APPEA"S 03 SCRA (2& $.R. NO.3-3-2 ' OCT /3/K

:acts4 &n <ecember ) and >, )*@>, pursuing an /nti90mut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of the City of Manila, 1amon <. !agatsing,elements of the 0pecial /nti9arcotics Froup, /uilliary 0ervices !ureau, =estern Police <istrict, "P of the Metropolitan Police :orce

of Manila, seized and confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewal-s, magazines,publications and other reading materials believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized materials inpublic at the Eniversity belt along C.M. 1ecto /venue, Manila, in the presence of Mayor !agatsing and several officers and members ofvarious student organizations.

/mong the publications seized, and later burned, was BPinoy PlayboyB magazines published and co9edited by plaintiff ;eo Pita.

Plaintiff filed a case for in6unction with prayer for issuance of the writ of preliminary in6unction against Mayor !agatsing and arciscoCabrera, as superintendent of =estern Police <istrict of the City of Manila, see-ing to en6oin said defendants and their agents fromconfiscating plaintiffSs magazines or from preventing the sale or circulation thereof claiming that the magazine is a decent, artistic andeducational magazine which is not per se obscene, and that the publication is protected by the Constitutional guarantees of freedom ofspeech and of the press. Plaintiff also filed an Ergent Motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order against indiscriminateseizure, confiscation and burning of plaintiffKs BPinoy PlayboyB Magazines, pending hearing on the petition for preliminary in6unction.



3he Court granted the temporary restraining order. 3he case was set for trial upon the lapse of the 31&. 13C ruled that the seizurewas valid. 3his was affirmed by the C/.

"ssue4 =hether or ot the seizure violative of the freedom of epression of the petitioner.

Held4 :reedom of the press is not without restraint as the state has the right to protect society from pornographic literature that isoffensive to public morals, as indeed we have laws punishing the author, publishers and sellers of obscene publications. However, "t iseasier said than done to say, that if the pictures here in question were used not eactly for artKs sa-e but rather for commercial

purposes, the pictures are not entitled to any constitutional protection. Esing the Iottinger rule4 the test of obscenity is Bwhether thetendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and intowhose hands a publication or other article charged as being obscene may fall.B /nother is whether it shoc-s the ordinary and commonsense of men as an indecency. Eltimately Bwhether a picture is obscene or indecent must depend upon the circumstances of the caseand that the question is to be decided by the B6udgment of the aggregate sense of the community reached by it.B 3he governmentauthorities in the instant case have not shown the required proof to 6ustify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the literature :irst of all,they were not possessed of a lawful court order4 #)$ finding the said materials to be pornography, and #'$ authorizing them to carry outa search and seizure, by way of a search warrant. 3he court provides that the authorities must apply for the issuance of a searchwarrant from a 6udge, if in their opinion an obscenity seizure is in order and that7

). 3he authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are obscene and pose a clear and present danger ofan evil substantive enough to warrant 0tate interference and action7

'. 3he 6udge must determine whether or not the same are indeed obscene. 3he question is to be resolved on a case9to9case basis andon the 6udgeSs sound discretion7

HARGEY G. )E6ENSOR%SANTIA$O 2& SCRA 31- $.R. NO. 3&'11 &3 JUN /33K?ednesday, 6eruary -1, &--/ Posted y Coffee;oi* ?rites"aes@ Case )igests, Poiti*a "aB

:acts4 3his is a petition for Habeas Corpus. Petitioners are the following4 /merican nationals /ndrew Harvey, ' and Jonh 0herman ('.<utch Citizen /driaan ?an <en lshout, @. /ll reside at Pagsan6an ;aguna respondent Commissioner Miriam <efensor 0antiagoissued Mission &rders to the Commission of "mmigration and <eportation #C"<$ to apprehended petitioners at their residences. 3heU&peration 1eportR read that /ndrew Harvey was found together with two young boys. 1ichard 0herman was found with two na-edboys inside his room. =hile ?an <en lshout in the Uafter Mission 1eportR read that two children of ages )D and )+ has been under hiscare and sub6ects confirmed being live9in for sometime now.

0eized during the petitionerSs apprehension were rolls of photo negatives and photos of suspected child prostitutes shown inscandalous poses as well as boys and girls engaged in se. Posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes were alsofound.

Petitioners were among the '' suspected alien pedophiles. 3hey were apprehended )( :ebruary)*@@ after close surveillance for >month of the C"< in Pagsan6an, ;aguna. )( of the arrested aliens opted for self9deportation. &ne released for lac- of evidence, anothercharged not for pedophile but wor-ing with & ?"0/, the > petitioners chose to face deportation proceedings. &n D March)*@@,deportation proceedings were instituted against aliens for being undesirable aliens under 0ec.+* of 1evised /dministrative Code.

=arrants of /rrest were issued (March)*@@ against petitioners for violation of 0ec>(, D and D+ of "mmigration /ct and sec+* of1evised /dministrative Code. 3rial by the !oard of 0pecial "nquiry """ commenced the same date. Petition for bail was filed ))March)*@@ but was not granted by the Commissioner of "mmigration. D /pril)*@@ Petitioners filed a petition for =rit of Habeas Corpus. 3hecourt heard the case on oral argument on '2 /pril )*@@.

"ssues4

#)$ =hether or ot the Commissioner has the power to arrest and detain petitioners pending determination of eistence of probablecause.

#'$ =hether or ot there was unreasonable searches and seizures by C"< agents.

#>$ =hether or ot the writ of Habeas Corpus may be granted to petitioners.

Held4 =hile pedophilia is not a crime under the 1evised Penal Code, it violates the declared policy of the state to promote and protectthe physical, moral, spiritual and social well being of the youth. 3he arrest of petitioners was based on the probable cause determinedafter close surveillance of > months. 3he eistence of probable cause 6ustified the arrest and seizure of articles lin-ed to the offense.3he articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest7 therefore the articles are admissible evidences #1ule )'+, 0ection)' of 1uleson Criminal Procedure$.

3he rule that search and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. 3here are at least threeeceptions to this rule. ).$ 0earch is incidental to the arrest. '.$ 0earch in a moving vehicle. >.$ 0eizure of evidence in plain view. "nview of the foregoing, the search done was incidental to the arrest.

3he filing of the petitioners for bail is considered as a waiver of any irregularity attending their arrest and estops them from questioningits validity. :urthermore, the deportation charges and the hearing presently conducted by the !oard of 0pecial "nquiry made theirdetention legal. "t is a fundamental rule that habeas corpus will not be granted when confinement is or has become legal, although suchconfinement was illegal at the beginning.

3he deportation charges instituted by the Commissioner of "mmigration are in accordance with 0ec>( #a$ of the Philippine "mmigration /ct of )*D2 in relation to sec+* of the 1evised /dministrative code. 0ection >( #a$ provides that aliens shall be arrested and deported



upon warrant of the Commissioner of "mmigration and <eportation after a determination by the !oard of Commissioners of theeistence of a ground for deportation against them. <eportation proceedings are administrative in character and never construed as apunishment but a preventive measure. 3herefore, it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary Court proceedings.=hat is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien intended to be arrested and deported. / fair hearing mustalso be conducted with assistance of a counsel if desired.

;astly, the power to deport aliens is an act of the 0tate and done under the authority of the sovereign power. "t a police measureagainst the undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be in6urious to the public good and tranquility of thepeople.

9UA CHEE $AN, JAMES UY, )ANIE" )Y alias )EE PAC, CHAN TION$ YU, CUA CHU TIAN, CHUA "IM PAOalias JOSE CHUAand !ASI"IO =IN$, petitioners9appellants, vs.

THE )EPORTATION !OAR), respondent9appellee. $.R. No. "%-&3- Se<te+er (-, /2(

!ARRERA, J.:

3his is an appeal from the decision of the Court of :irst "nstance of Manila #in 0p. Proc. o. '22>($ denying the petition for writsof &aeas !orpus and5or prohibition, !ertiorari, and mandamus filed by ua Chee Fan, James Ey, <aniel <y alias <ee Pac, Chan3iong 8u, Chua Chu 3ian, Chua ;im Pao alias Jose Chua, and !asilio Iing. 3he facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows4.

&n May )', )*', 0pecial Prosecutor milio ;. Falang charged the above9named petitioners before the <eportation !oard, with

having purchased E.0. dollars in the total sum of Y)>2,222.22, without the necessary license from the Central !an- of the Philippines,and of having clandestinely remitted the same to Hong-ong and petitioners, ua Chee Fan, Chua ;im Pao alias Jose Chua, and!asilio Iing, with having attempted to bribe officers of the Philippine and Enited 0tates Fovernments #/ntonio ;aforteza, Chief of the"ntelligence <ivision of the Central !an-, and Capt. /. P. Chara- of the &0", E.0. /ir :orce$ in order to evade prosecution for saidunauthorized purchase of E.0. dollars.)

:ollowing the filing of said deportation charges, a warrant for the arrest of said aliens was issued by the presiding member of the<eportation !oard. Epon their filing surety bond for P)2,222.22 and cash bond for P)2,222.22, herein petitioners9appellants wereprovisionally set at liberty.

&n 0eptember '', )*', petitioners9appellants filed a 6oint motion to dismiss the charges presented against them in the<eportation !oard for the reason, among others, that the same do not constitute legal ground for deportation of aliens from this country,and that said !oard has no 6urisdiction to entertain such charges. 3his motion to dismiss having been denied by order of the !oard of:ebruary *, )*>, petitioners9appellants filed in this Court a petition for &aeas !orpus and5or prohibition, which petition was given duecourse in our resolution of July (, )*>, but made returnable to the Court of :irst "nstance of Manila #F.1. o. ;9+(@>$. 3he case wasdoc-eted in the lower court as 0pecial Proceeding o. '22>(.

/t the instance of petitioners and upon their filing a bond for P,222.22 each, a writ of preliminary in6unction was issued by thelower court, restraining the respondent <eportation !oard from hearing <eportation charges o. 19D' against petitioners, pendingfinal termination of the &aeas !orpus and5or prohibition proceedings.

&n July '*, )*>, the respondent !oard filed its answer to the original petition, maintaining among others, that the <eportation!oard, as an agent of the President, has 6urisdiction over the charges filed against petitioners and the authority to order their arrest7 andthat, while petitioner ua Chee Fan was acquitted of the offense of attempted bribery of a public official, he was found in the samedecision of the trial court that he did actually offer money to an officer of the Enited 0tates /ir :orce in order that the latter may abstainfrom assisting the Central !an- official in the investigation of the purchase of Y)>2,222.22 from the Clar- /ir :orce !ase, wherein saidpetitioner was involved.

/fter due trial, the court rendered a decision on January )@, )*+, upholding the validity of the delegation by the president to the<eportation !oard of his power to conduct investigations for the purpose of determining whether the stay of an alien in this countrywould be in6urious to the security, welfare and interest of the 0tate. 3he court, li-ewise, sustained the power of the deportation !oard toissue warrant of arrest and fi bonds for the alienKs temporary release pending investigation of charges against him, on the theory thatthe power to arrest and fi the amount of the bond of the arrested alien is essential to and complement the power to deport alienspursuant to 0ection +* of the 1evised /dministrative Code. Consequently, the petitioners instituted the present appeal. .

"t may be pointed out at the outset that after they were provisionally released on bail, but before the charges filed against themwere actually investigated, petitioners9appellant raised the question of 6urisdiction of the <eportation !oard, first before said body, thenin the Court of :irst "nstance, and now before us. Petitioners9appellants contest the power of the President to deport aliens and,consequently, the delegation to the <eportation !oard of the ancillary power to investigate, on the ground that such power is vested inthe ;egislature. "n other words, it is claimed, for the power to deport to be eercised, there must be a legislation authorizing the same.

Ender Commonwealth /ct o. +)> #"mmigration /ct of )*D2$, the Commissioner of "mmigration was empowered to effect thearrest and epulsion of an alien, after previous determination by the !oard of Commissioners of the eistence of ground or groundstherefor #0ec9 >($. =ith the enactment of this law, however, the legislature did not intend to delimit or concentrate the eercise of thepower to deport on the "mmigration Commissioner alone, because in its 0ection ', it provides4.

0C. '. 3his /ct is in substitution for and supersedes all previous laws relating to the entry of aliens into thePhilippines, and their eclusion, deportation, and repatriation therefrom, with the eception of section sity9nine of /ct

umbered 3wenty9seven hundred and eleven which shall continue in force and effect4 ...B #Comm. /ct o. +)>$.

0ection +* of /ct o. '()) #1evised /dministrative Code$ referred to above reads4.

0C. +* 9eportation o- su<e!t to -oreign po'er . A / sub6ect of a foreign power residing in the Philippines shall not bedeported, epelled, or ecluded from said "slands or repatriated to his own country by the President of the Philippines eceptupon prior investigation, conducted by said ecutive or his authorized agent, of the ground upon which 0uch action iscontemplated. "n such case the person concerned shall be informed of the charge or charges against him and he shall beallowed not less than these days for the preparation of his defense. He shall also have the right to be heard by himself orcounsel, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to cross9eamine the opposing witnesses.B

=hile it may really be contended that the aforequoted provision did not epressly confer on the President the authority to deportundesirable aliens, unli-e the epress grant to the Commissioner of "mmigration under Commonwealth /ct o. +)>, but merely laysdown the procedure to be observed should there be deportation proceedings, the fact that such a procedure was provided for before



the President can deport an alien9which provision was epressly declared eempted from the repealing effect of the "mmigration /ct of)*D29is a clear indication of the recognition, and inferentially a ratification, by the legislature of the eistence of such power in theecutive. /nd the, eercise of this power by the chief ecutive has been sanctioned by this Court in several decisions. '

Ender the present and eisting laws, therefore, deportation of an undesirable alien may be effected in two ways4 by order of thePresident, after due investigation, pursuant to 0ection +* of the 1evised /dministrative Code, and by the Commissioner of "mmigration,upon recommendation by the !oard of Commissioners, under 0ection >( of Commonwealth /ct o. +)>.

Petitioners contend, however, that even granting that the President is invested with power to deport, still he may do so only uponthe grounds enumerated in Commonwealth /ct o. +)>, as amended, and on no other, as it would be unreasonable and undemocraticto hold that an alien may be deported upon an unstated or undefined ground depending merely on the unlimited discretion of the Chiefecutive. 3his contention is not without merit, considering that whenever the legislature believes a certain act or conduct to be a 6ustcause for deportation, it invariably enacts a law to that effect. 3hus, in a number of amendatory acts, grounds have been added tothose originally contained in 0ection >( of Commonwealth /ct o. +)>, as 6ustifying deportation of an alien, as well as other laws whichprovide deportation as part of the penalty imposed on aliens committing violation thereof.

!e this as it may, the charges against the herein petitioners constitute in effect an act of profiteering, hoarding or blac-mar-etingof E.0. dollars, in violation of the Central !an- regulations A an economic sabotage A which is a ground for deportation under theprovisions of 1epublic /ct 2> amending 0ection >( of the Philippine "mmigration /ct of )*D2. 3he President may therefore order thedeportation of these petitioners if after investigation they are shown to have committed the act charged.

3here seems to be no doubt that the PresidentKs power of investigation may be delegated. 3his is clear from a reading of 0ection+* of the 1evised /dministrative Code which provides for a Bprior investigation, conducted by said ecutive #the President$ or &isaut&ori$ed agent.B 3he first eecutive order on the sub6ect was that of Fovernor Feneral :ran- Murphy #o. D*D, July '+, )*>D$,constituting a board to ta-e action on complaints against foreigners, to conduct investigations and thereafter ma-e recommendations.!y virtue of ecutive &rder o. >> dated May '*, )*>+, President uezon created the <eportation !oard primarily to receivecomplaints against aliens charged to be undesirable, to conduct investigation pursuant to 0ection +* of the 1evised /dministrative

Code and the rules and regulations therein provided, and ma-e the corresponding recommendation.>

0ince then, the <eportation!oard has been conducting the investigation as the authorized agent of the President.

3his gives rise to the question regarding the etent of the power of the President to conduct investigation, i.e., whether suchauthority carries with it the power to order the arrest of the alien complained of, since the /dministrative Code is silent on the matter,and if it does, whether the same may be delegated to the respondent <eportation !oard.(a'p&Gl.nHt

;et it be noted that 0ection +* of the 1evised /dministrative Code, unli-e Commonwealth /ct o. +)> wherein theCommissioner of "mmigration was specifically granted authority, among others, to ma-e arrests, fails to provide the President with li-especific power to be eercised in connection with such investigation. "t must be for this reason that President 1oas for the first time,saw it necessary to issue his ecutive &rder o. +*, dated July '*, )*D(, providing A

:or the purpose of insuring the appearance of aliens charged before the <eportation !oard created under ecutive&rder o. >(, dated January D, )*D(, and facilitating the eecution of the order of deportation whenever the President decidesthe case against the respondent. ", Manuel 1oas, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law,do hereby order that all respondents in deportation proceedings shall file a bond with the Commissioner of "mmigration in such

amount and containing such conditions as he may prescribe. .

ote that the eecutive order only required the filing of a bond to secure appearance of the alien under investigation. "t did notauthorize the arrest of the respondent.

"t was only on January , )*), when President uirino reorganized the <eportation !oard by virtue of his ecutive &rder o.>*@, that the !oard was authorized motu proprio or upon the filing of formal charges by the 0pecial Prosecutor of the !oard, to issuethe warrant for the arrest of the alien complained of and to hold him under detention during the investigation unless he files a bond forhis provisional release in such amount and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Chairman of the !oard.

/s has been pointed out elsewhere, 0ection +* of the 1evised /dministrative Code, upon whose authority the PresidentKs powerto deport is predicated, does not provide for the eercise of the power to arrest. !ut the 0olicitor Feneral argues that the law could nothave denied to the Chief ecutive acts which are absolutely necessary to carry into effect the power of deportation granted him, suchas the authority to order the arrest of the foreigner charged as undesirable.

"n this connection, it must be remembered that the right of an individual to be secure in his person is guaranteed by theConstitution in the following language4.

>. 3he right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches andseizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the 6udge aftereamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing theplace to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.B #0ec ), /rt. """, !ill of 1ights, Philippine Constitution$.

/s observed by the late Justice ;aurel in his concurring opinion in the case of Rodrigue$, et al. %. 3illamiel, et al . #+ Phil. '>2,'>*$, this provision is not the same as that contained in the Jones ;aw wherein this guarantee is placed among the rights of theaccused. Ender our Constitution, the same is declared a popular right of the people and, of course, indisputably it equally applies toboth citizens and foreigners in this country. :urthermore, a notable innovation in this guarantee is found in our Constitution in that itspecifically provides that the probable cause upon which a warrant of arrest may be issued, must be determined by the 6udge aftereamination under oath, etc., of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. 3his requirement A Bto be determined by the 6udgeB A is not found in the :ourth /mendment of the E.0. Constitution, in the Philippine !ill or in the Jones /ct, all of which do notspecify who will determine the eistence of a probable cause. Hence, under their provisions, any public officer may be authorized by the

;egislature to ma-e such determination, and thereafter issue the warrant of arrest. Ender the epress terms of our Constitution, it is,therefore, even doubtful whether the arrest of an individual may be ordered by any authority other than the 6udge if the purpose ismerely to determine the eistence of a probable cause, leading to an administrative investigation. 3he Constitution does not distinguishbetween warrants in a criminal case and administrative warrants in administrative proceedings. /nd, if one suspected of havingcommitted a crime is entitled to a determination of the probable cause against him, by a 6udge, why should one suspected of a violationof an administrative nature deserve less guarantee &f course it is different if the order of arrest is issued to carry out a final finding of aviolation, either by an eecutive or legislative officer or agency duly authorized for the purpose, as then the warrant is not thatmentioned in the Constitution which is issuable only on probable cause. 0uch, for eample, would be a warrant of arrest to carry out afinal order of deportation, or to effect compliance of an order of contempt.

3he contention of the 0olicitor Feneral that the arrest of a foreigner is necessary to carry into effect the power of deportation isvalid only when, as already stated, there is already an order of deportation. 3o carry out the order of deportation, the Presidentobviously has the power to order the arrest of the deportee. !ut, certainly, during the investigation, it is not indispensable that the alien



be arrested. "t is enough, as was true before the eecutive order of President uirino, that a bond be required to insure the appearanceof the alien during the investigation, as was authorized in the eecutive order of President 1oas. !e that as it may, it is not imperativefor us to rule, in this proceeding 9 and nothing herein said is intended to so decide A on whether or not the President himself can orderthe arrest of a foreigner for purposes of investigation only, and before a definitive order of deportation has been issued. =e are merelycalled upon to resolve herein whether, conceding without deciding that the President can personally order the arrest of the aliencomplained of, such power can be delegated by him to the <eportation !oard.

Enquestionably, the eercise of the power to order the arrest of an individual demands the eercise of discretion by the oneissuing the same, to determine whether under specific circumstances, the curtailment of the liberty of such person is warranted. 3hefact that the Constitution itself, as well as the statute relied upon, prescribe the manner by which the warrant may be issued, conveysthe intent to ma-e the issuance of such warrant dependent upon conditions the determination of the eistence of which requires the use

of discretion by the person issuing the same. "n other words, the discretion of whether a warrant of arrest shall issue or not is personalto the one upon whom the authority devolves. /nd authorities are to the effect that while ministerial duties may be delegated, officialfunctions requiring the eercise of discretion and 6udgment, may not be so delegated. "ndeed, an implied grant of power, consideringthat no epress authority was granted by the law on the matter under discussion, that would serve the curtailment or limitation on thefundamental right of a person, such as his security to life and liberty, must be viewed with caution, if we are to give meaning to theguarantee contained in the Constitution. "f this is so, then guarantee a delegation of that implied power, nebulous as it is, must bere6ected as inimical to the liberty of the people. 3he guarantees of human rights and freedom can not be made to rest precariously onsuch a sha-y foundation.

=e are not unaware of the statements made by this Court in the case of an "in %. 9eportation Board #F.1. o. ;9)))), ov.'@,)*@$. "t may be stated, however, that the power of arrest was not squarely raised in that proceeding, but only as a consequence oftherein petitionerKs proposition that the President had no inherent power to deport and that the charges filed against him did notconstitute ground for deportation. .

" ?"= &: 3H :&1F&"F, ecutive &rder o. >*@, series of )*), insofar as it empowers the <eportation !oard to issuewarrant of arrest upon the filing of formal charges against an alien or aliens and to fi bond and prescribe the conditions for the

temporary release of said aliens, is declared illegal. /s a consequence, the order of arrest issued by the respondent <eportation !oardis declared null and void and the bonds filed pursuant to such order of arrest, decreed cancelled. =ith the foregoing modification, thedecision appealed from is hereby affirmed. o costs. 0o ordered.

MARTINIANO P. GIGO, as A*ting Co++issioner of I++igration, !OAR) O6 COMMISSIONERS, !ureau of I++igration and)EPORTATION O66ICER, !ureau of I++igration, petitioners, vs.HON. A$USTIN P. MONTESA, as Judge of t;e Court of 6irst Instan*e of Mania, !ran*; 8I8, JOSE CA"AC)AY, ETA"., respondents. $.R. No. "%&1'02 Juy &/, /23

REYES, J.!."., J.:

Petition for !ertiorari and prohibition with preliminary in6unction to annul the order of '( May )*+ of the respondent Court of :irst"nstance of Manila, in its Civil Case o. +2*2+, which en6oined the above9named immigration officers from arresting and detaining, witha view to deporting the herein private respondents.

3he private respondents Juan, Pedro, Julio, Marcelo, Jose, Manuel and !enito, all surnamed BCalacdayB arrived in the Philippines fromHong-ong, the first four on )@ ovember )**, and the last three on + <ecember )**. Epon their arrival they sought admission as:ilipino citizens. /fter investigation, a board of special inquiry, in its decisions of ( and )) <ecember )**, found them to be thelegitimate sons of a :ilipino citizen, one "saac Calacday, and thus admitted them into this country. 3he !ureau of "mmigration thenissued to each of them an identification certificate as a :ilipino citizen, with the notation that their admission as such was by a decisionof the board of special inquiry, duly affirmed by the !oard of Commissioners.

0ometime in :ebruary, )*+>, however, "saac Calacday confessed before an immigration official that the seven respondents were nothis sons #Petition, page D, paragraph D7 /nne BCB to Petition, page '7 /nne B"B to /nswer7 1espondentKs Manifestation, '* ovember)*+, page D$. He retracted his confession in March, )*+>, in an investigation in the <epartment of Justice, with the eplanation that, ina fit of anger, he disclaimed, under oath, paternity of the respondents because they refused to give him money #/nne B"B to /nswer$.

&n * May )*+>, Commissioner of "mmigration Martiniano ?ivo issued warrants of arrest against the herein private respondents, statingin said warrants their deportability under 0ection >( #a$ #)$ and 0ection >( #a$ #'$ in relation to 0ection '*#a$ #)($ of the Philippine"mmigration /ct of )*D2, as amended, for having entered the Philippines Bby means of false and misleading statements and that theywere not lawfully admissible at the time of entry, not being properly documented for admission.B 3he warrants directed any immigrationoffice or officer of the law to bring the respondents before the Commissioner, for them to show cause, if any there be, why they shouldnot be deported #/nnees B!9)B and B!9'B to Petition$.

Manuel Calacday was subsequently arrested. 3he others remained at large.

&n '+ /pril )*+, the respondents filed before the respondent court a petition, doc-eted as Civil Case o. +2*2+, praying for threeprincipal reliefs, namely4 to restrain the arrest of those petitioners who have not been arrested7 to release Manuel Calacday who hadbeen arrested7 and to prohibit the deportation of all the petitioners, all upon the claim that they are :ilipino citizens.

1espondent Commissioner of "mmigration questioned the propriety of the remedy of prohibition, and insisted that &aeas !orpus is theproper one, but the respondent court invo-ed its general 6urisdiction, which includes!ertiorari and prohibition, on the ground that &aeas!orpus would be proper only to the one already arrested but not to those not yet arrested.

&n '( May )*+, the respondent court, resolving the issue only of Bwhether the respondent /cting Commissioner of "mmigration#therein petitioner$ can summarily order the arrest and deportation of the petitioners #therein respondents$ ..., without giving them achance to be heard as :ilipino citizensB, and relying on the case of Commissioner o- Immigration %s. Fernande$, et al., ;9''+*+, '* May)*+D, issued the order, now being questioned before this Court, the dispositive part of which states4 .

" ?"= 3H1&:, the Court finds, the motion to be well9founded, and so hereby orders that the writ of preliminary in6unctionissued #sic$ during the pendency of this action, en6oining the respondents from arresting and detaining the petitioners herein,with a view to their deportation, upon the filing by the petitioners of a bond in the amount of P)2,222 each, to answer forwhatever damages may be sustained by the respondents as a result of the issuance of the said writ. "n the meantime, therespondents are hereby ordered to release Manuel Calacday and any other of them who may now be detained by virtue of theorder of arrest issued by the respondents, within D@ hours after the filing of the said bond to guarantee their appearance hereand at the investigation of their case by the !oard of "mmigration.



=e agree with petitioning Commissioner that the court below is without 6urisdiction to restrain the deportation proceedings ofrespondents Calacdays.3hese proceedings are within the 6urisdiction of the "mmigration authorities under 0ections '@ and >( of thePhilippine "mmigration /ct #C./. o. +)>$. 3hat 6urisdiction is not tolled by a claim of :ilipino citizenship, where the Commissioner orCommissioners have reliable evidence to the contrary7 and said officers should be given opportunity to determine the issue ofcitizenship before the courts interfere in the eercise of the power of 6udicial review of administrative decisions. =e have so ruled inPorta Perez, et al. vs. !oard of 0pecial "nquiry, ;9*'>+, '* May )*+, wherein we said4 .

3he respondents impugn petitionersK claim to Philippine citizenship on the strength of a sworn 0tatement of 3ecla 0ocella,supposed mother of the petitioner Melanio Porta Perez as given in the birth certificate presented by him to the immigrationauthorities to the effect that the said birth certificate refers not to the said petitioner but to one Melanio Perez now living inPagbilao, uezon Province. /nd there being thus substantial evidence that petitioners are not :ilipino citizens but are Chinese

nationals who have gained entry into this country through false representations, the respondents by way of special defense,contend that the present action is premature, and urge that they be allowed to proceed with their investigation until they shallhave finally determined whether petitioners are or are not :ilipino citizens, or are or are not sub6ect to deportation.

=e find merit in this contention. 3he present case is not one where the Philippine citizenship of the persons threatened withdeportation is admitted or conclusively appears, there being reliable evidence that herein petitioners are aliens who havesucceeded in gaining entry into this country through false representations. "n line with the views epressed by this Court in thecase of Federi!o M. C&ua 0iong %. &e 9eportation Board, F.1. o. ;9 +2>@, March )*, )*, we thin- it would be in thesound 6udicial discretion to allow the respondents to continue the proceedings already begun by them until they havedetermined whether or not the petitioners are aliens. 3heir decision on the question is, of course, not final but sub6ect to reviewby the courts.B.

/nd in Miranda %s. 9eportation Board, *D Phil. >), >>, this Court said4 .('p&(.Kt

=hile the 6urisdiction of the <eportation !oard as an instrument of the Chief ecutive to deport undesirable aliens eists onlywhen the person arrested is an alien, however, the mere plea of citizenship does not divest the !oard of its 6urisdiction over

the case. Petitioners should ma-e Ba showing that his claim is frivolousB #g :ung Ho vs. =hite, '* E.0., '($, and mustprove by sufficient evidence that they are :ilipino citizens. GIessler vs. 0trec-er #)*>*$ >2( E.0., '), >9>+. "f such is theprimary duty of petitioners, it follows that the <eportation !oard has the necessary power to pass upon the evidence that maybe presented and determine in the first instance if petitioners are :ilipino citizens or not. 3his is inherent9in, or essential to theefficient eercise of, the power of the <eportation !oard #;aurencio vs.Collector of Customs, > Phil., >($. "t is not thereforecorrect to state that the question of citizenship should be determinede;!lusi%el/ by the court, /s this Court ruled in a recentcase4 .

1esuelto por la Junta que tiene 6urisdiccion, es obvio que debe proseguir con el caso hasta su terminacion. 0i laJunta halla infundados los cargos de indeseabilidad del recurrente, el caso habra terminado totalmente, pero si lahalla indeseable, puede apelar contra el fallo, y si la apelacion fracasa, entonces sera el tiempo de considerar sidemonstrando causa razonable debe haber un 6uicio ulterior sobre la ciudadania :ilipina que alega mediante habeascorpus.B #;lanco vs. 3he <eportation !oard, F.1. o. ;9+'(', prom. :ebruary '', )*D.$

"t is well to note here that when the petition for certiorari and prohibition #the respondent 6udge considered it as such$ was filed,deportation proceedings had been started against the respondents #petitioners below$ but had not been completed. "n view of the non9

completion of the proceedings, the !oard of Commissioners has not rendered as yet any decision. 3he respondents Calacdays,therefore, are not being deported. !efore the !oard reaches a decision, it has to conduct a hearing where the main issue will be thecitizenship or alienage of the respondents. 3herefore, there is nothing so far for the courts to review.

"t is clear from the order complained of that the court below misapprehended the import of the warrants issued by the Commissionerherein. 0aid warrants required the respondents to be brought to the immigration authorities, not to be deported, but Bto show cause, ifany there be, why he should not be deported from the PhilippinesB, as epressly recited therein. 3here was no case of Bsummarilyarresting and deportingB the respondents Calacdays, as unwarrantedly assumed by the court below.

3he Calacdays have alluded in this Court to certain documents in support of their claim to Philippine citizenship. 3he proper procedureis for said respondents to appear before the "mmigration officials and there submit these documents as evidence on their part to showcause why they should not be deported.

evertheless, we are of the opinion that, the issuance of warrants of arrest by the Commissioners of "mmigration, solely for purposes ofinvestigation and before a final order of deportation is issued, conflicts with paragraph >, 0ection ), of /rticle """ #!ill of 1ights$ of ourConstitution, providing4 .

>. 3he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable, searches andseizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the 6udge aftereamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing theplace to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"t will be noted that the power to determine probable cause for warrants of arrest is limited by the Philippine Constitution to 6udgeeclusively, unli-e in previous organic laws and the :ederal Constitution of the Enited 0tates that left undetermined which publicofficials could determine the eistence of probable cause. /nd in ua Chee Fan, et al. vs. <eportation !oard, ;9'2'@2, promulgated on0eptember >2 )*+>, this Court pointed out that ecutive &rder o. +*, of July '*, )*D(, issued by President 1oas, in prescribing theprocedure for deportation of aliens, only required the filing of a bond by an alien under investigation, but did not authorize his arrest.

<iscussing the implications of the provision of our !ill of 1ights on the issuance of administrative warrants of arrest, this Court said inthe same case4 .

Ender the epress terms of our Constitution it is, therefore, even doubtful whether the arrest of an individual may be orderedby any authority other than the 6udge if the purpose is merely to determine the eistence of a probable cause, leading to anadministrative investigation. 3he Constitution does not distinguish between warrants in a criminal case and administrativewarrants in administrative proceedings. /nd if one suspected of having committed a crime is entitled to a determination of theprobable cause against him, by a 6udge, why should one suspected of a violation of an administrative nature deserve lessguarantee &f course it is different if the order of arrest is issued to carry out a final finding of a violation, either by aneecutive or legislative officer or agency duly authorized for the purpose, as then the warrant is not that mentioned in theConstitution which is issuable only probable cause. 0uch, for eample, would be a warrant of arrest to carry out a final order ofdeportation, or to effect compliance of an order of contempt.

3he contention of the 0olicitor Feneral that the arrest of a foreigner is necessary to carry into effect the power of deportation isvalid only when, as already stated, there is already an order of deportation. 3o carry out the order of deportation, the Presidentobviously has the power to order the arrest of the deportee. !ut, certainly during the investigation, it is not indispensable that



the alien be arrested. "t s enough, as was true before the eecutive order of President uirino, that a bond be required toinsure the appearance of the alien during the investigation, as was authorized in the eecutive order of President 1oas.

:ollowing the same trend of thought, this Court, in Morano vs. ?ivo #;9'')*+, >2 June )*+(, '2 0C1/, +'7 Phil. )*+(9!, page (D)$,distinguished between administrative arrest, in the eecution of a final deportation order and arrest as preliminary to furtheradministrative proceedings. 3he Court remar-ed in said case4

0ection ) #>$, /rticle """ of the Constitution, we perceive, does not require 6udicial intervention in the eecution of a final order ofdeportation issued in accordance with law. 3he constitutional limitation contemplates an order of arrest in the eercise of 6udicial power ) as a step preliminary or incidental to prosecution or proceedings for a given offense or administrative action,not as a measure indispensable to carry out a valid decision by a competent official, such as a legal order of deportation,issued by the Commissioner of "mmigration, in pursuance of a valid legislation.

=e see no reason why the cautionary bond requirement of the )*D( ecutive &rder o. +* of President 1oas should not apply todeportation proceedings initiated by the "mmigration Commissioners, considering the identity of ends sought to be served. 0uch noticeand bonds should suffice to ensure the sub6ectKs appearance at the hearings without pre6udice to more drastic measures in case ofrecalcitrant respondents. !ut as long as the illegal entry or offense of the respondents Calacdays has not yet been established andtheir epulsion finally decided upon, their arrest upon administrative warrant violates the provisions of our !ill of 1ights. 3heconstitutional guarantees of individual liberty must be liberally construed and applied if we are to en6oy the blessings of a regime of 6ustice, liberty and democracy that the Philippine Constitution sought to secure and consolidate.

" ?"= &: 3H :&1F&"F, the writ prayed for is hereby granted, the order issued in Civil Case o. +2*2+ of the Court of :irst"nstance of Manila is set aside, and the proceedings ordered discontinued. !ut the warrants of arrest heretofore issued by thepetitioner, "mmigration Commissioner, against herein respondents Calacdays are declared null and void, without pre6udice to saidrespondents being required to furnish bonds in such reasonable sums as the "mmigration Commissioners may fi, in order to guaranteetheir appearance at the hearings and other proceedings in their case, until final determination of their right to stay in the Philippines. ocosts. 0o ordered.

SA"A#AR GS. ACHACOSO 3( SCRA 1' $.R. NO. 3'- 1 MAR //-K

;abels4 Case <igests, Political ;aw

:acts4 1osalie 3esoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with the P&/, charged petitioner with illegal recruitment. Publicrespondent /tty. :erdinand Marquez sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear to the P&/ regarding the complaint againsthim. &n the same day, after -nowing that petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent /dministrator3omas /chacoso issued a Closure and 0eizure &rder o. )'2 to petitioner. "t stated that there will a seizure of the documents andparaphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having verified that petitioner hasA#)$ o valid license or authority from the <epartment of ;abor and mployment to recruit and deploy wor-ers for overseas employment7#'$ Committed5are committing acts prohibited under /rticle >D of the ew ;abor Code in relation to /rticle >@ of the same code. / teamwas then tas-ed to implement the said &rder. 3he group, accompanied by mediamen and Mandaluyong policemen, went to petitionerSsresidence. 3hey served the order to a certain Mrs. :or a 0alazar, who let them in. 3he team confiscated assorted costumes. Petitionerfiled with P&/ a letter requesting for the return of the seized properties, because she was not given prior notice and hearing. 3he said&rder violated due process. 0he also alleged that it violated sec ' of the !ill of 1ights, and the properties were confiscated against herwill and were done with unreasonable force and intimidation.

"ssue4 =hether or ot the Philippine &verseas mployment /dministration #or the 0ecretary of ;abor$ can validly issue warrants ofsearch and seizure #or arrest$ under /rticle >@ of the ;abor Code

Held4 Ender the new Constitution, U. . . no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue ecept upon probable cause to be determinedpersonally by the 6udge after eamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, andparticularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seizedR. Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issuewarrants of seizure or arrest. 3he Closure and 0eizure &rder was based on /rticle >@ of the ;abor Code. 3he 0upreme Court held, U=e

reiterate that the 0ecretary of ;abor, not being a 6udge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must gothrough the 6udicial process. 3o that etent, we declare /rticle >@, paragraph #c$, of the ;abor Code, unconstitutional and of no forceand effectZ 3he power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is, obviously, eceptional. "t #the power to orderarrests$ cannot be made to etend to other cases, li-e the one at bar. Ender the Constitution, it is the sole domain of the courts.R:urthermore, the search and seizure order was in the nature of a general warrant. 3he court held that the warrant is null and void,because it must identify specifically the things to be seized.

=H1:&1, the petition is F1/3<. /rticle >@, paragraph #c$ of the ;abor Code is declared EC&03"3E3"&/; and null andvoid. 3he respondents are &1<1< to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of 0earch and 0eizure &rder o.)'2.

Noas*o 4s. Pano

Conflicting views between the ponente Justice Melencio9Herrera and Justices 3eehan-ee and Cuevas concerning the validity place ofarrest and search of the accused in connection with ;awful 0earch "ncidental to an /rrest

:acts4 3he petitioners, olasco, /guilar91oque and 3olentino were charged of the crime of 1ebellion, 0ubversion and5or Conspiracyo commit 1ebellion50ubversion and was arrested by Constabulary 0ecurity Froup #C0F$ on /ugust +th at ))4>2 /M at the intersectionof Mayon 0t. and P. Margali 0t, uezon City.

/t )' noon of that same day, a search was conducted at the residence of the petitioner /guilar91oque at '>* ! Mayon 0t. C. 3heC0F confiscated D'@ written documents, typewriter and ' wooden boes.

3he petitioners alleged that the search warrant and arrest warrants issued was void in the ground that there is no established eistingprobable cause and that the warrant is a general in nature, violative of their constitutional right.





some poc-et money. He was sentenced to death thereafter. He averred that the search and seizure conducted was illegal for there was no warrant and

that he should have been given the opportunity to cross eamine the informant. He said that if the informant has given the cops the information about hisarrival as early as the day before his apprehension, the cops should have ample time to secure a search warrant.

ISSUE@ =hether or not the warrantless arrest conducted is legal.

HE")@ 3he 0C ruled that the warrantless arrest is legal. 0ec ' /rt > of the Constitution has its eception, they are4 #)$ customs searches7

#'$ searches of moving vehicles,

#>$ seizure of evidence in plain view7

#D$ consented searches7

#$ searches incidental to a lawful arrest7

#+$ Ustop and fris-R measures have been invariably recognized as the traditional eceptions."n the case at bar, it should be noted that the information relayed by informant to the cops was that there would be delivery of mari6uana at !arangay

0alitran by a courier coming from !aguio in the Uearly morningR of June '2, )**D. ven assuming that the policemen were not pressed for time, this

would be beside the point for, under these circumstances, the information relayed was too s-etchy and not detailed enough for the obtention of thecorresponding arrest or search warrant. =hile there is an indication that the informant -new the courier, the records do not reveal that he -new him byname.

&n such bare information, the police authorities could not have properly applied for a warrant, assuming that they could readily have access to a 6udge

or a court that was still open by the time they could ma-e preparations for applyingtherefor, and on which there is no evidence presented by thedefense. "n determining the opportunity for obtaining warrants, not only the intervening time is controlling but all the coincident and ambientcircumstances should be considered, especially in rural areas.

/ legitimate warrantless arrest, as above contemplated, necessarily cloa-s the arresting police officer with authority to validly search and seize from theoffender

#)$ dangerous weapons, and

#'$ those that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense.

PEOP"E O6 THE PHI"IPPINES, plaintiff9appellee, vs.ROE" ENCINA)A, accused9appellant. $.R. No. 20&- O*toer &, //0

PAN$ANI!AN, J.:

"n acquitting the appellant, the Court reiterates the constitutional proscription that evidence #in this case, prohibited drugs$ seizedwithout a valid search warrant is inadmissible in any proceeding. / yield of incriminating evidence will not legitimize an illegal search."ndeed, the end never 6ustifies the means.

&e Case

3his principle is stressed in this appeal from the Judgment, promulgated on July ), )**D by the 1egional 3rial Court of 0urigao City,!ranch >', & in Criminal Case o. >++@, convicting /ppellant 1oel ncinada of illegal transportation of prohibited drugs under 0ection Dof 1epublic /ct o. +D', as amended by !atas Pambansa !lg. )(*.

/n "nformation, ( dated May '', )**', was filed by 3hird /sst. 0urigao City Prosecutor ?irgilio M. gay charging appellant of said crimeallegedly committed as follows4

3hat on or about May '), )**', in the City of 0urigao, Philippines, and within the 6urisdiction of this Honorable Court, theabove9named accused, in gross disregard of the prohibition of the provisions of 1epublic /ct o. +D' as amended by !atasPambansa !ilang )(*, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control driedmari6uana leaves weighing @22 grams, more or less, which he transported to 0urigao City from Cebu City aboard a passengership, well -nowing that such acts are epressly prohibited by law.

!efore arraignment, appellant, assisted by Counsel /ntonio Casurra, offered to plead guilty to a lesser offense, i .e., illegal possession ofprohibited drugs. 1 3he trial court requested the prosecution to study the offer, ' but the records do not show any agreement on suchproposal.

Epon his arraignment, appellant pleaded Bnot guiltyB to the charge. 2 /fter the prosecution presented its evidence, the defense filed, with

leave of court, 0 a B<emurrer to videnceB dated 0eptember ), )**>, 3 questioning the admissibility of the evidence which allegedly wasillegally seized from appellant. 3he court a uo denied the motion, ruling4 /

:or resolution is the demurrer to evidence dated 0eptember ), )**> of the accused, 1oel ncinada, praying that he beacquitted of the crime charged on the ground of the inadmissibility of the evidence for the prosecution consisting of themari6uana #seized$ from him by the police. 3he accused raised the following issues, to wit4 #)$ =hether the arrest and searchof the accused without a warrant would fall under the doctrine of warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest7 and, #'$=hether the sub6ect mari6uana is admissible in evidence against the accused.

/ scrutiny of the evidence for the prosecution shows that the events leading to the arrest of the accused started when 0P&Dicolas !olonia, chief of the PP vice control section, received a tip from his informer that the accused, 1oel ncinada wouldbe arriving on board the M5? 0weet Pearl at about seven oKcloc- in the morning of May '), )**'. &n cross9eamination 0P&D!olonia testified that the information was given to him by his asset at about four oKcloc- in the afternoon of May '2, )**'. /fterreceiving the tip he relayed the information to 0P&D Cipriano "ligan, Jr., PP chief of intelligence. 0P&D !olonia further

declared that he would have applied for a search warrant but there was simply no time for it.

"n the later case of 4eople %s. anglien #)@D 0C1/ ''2$ the 0upreme Court modified its ruling in the /minuddin case when itheld that the arrest and search is lawful when the police had to act quic-ly and there was no more time to secure a searchwarrant. "t is noted that the tip was given to 0P&D !olonia by his informant at about the closing time of the offices of thevarious courts. He still had to inform 0P&D "ligan in order to coordinate with him. 3he boat carrying the accused wasscheduled to doc- in 0urigao City at seven oKcloc- the following morning when the courts had not yet opened.

"t is therefore quite obvious that the police did not have enough time to apply for a search warrant in the interim. 3he policecannot be faulted for acting on the tip and for stopping and searching the accused even without a warrant.



"n the case at bar, the accused was caught in flagrante delicto in actual possession of the mari6uana. 3he search made uponhis personal effects falls squarely under paragraph #a$ of 1ule ))>, 0ection of the )*@ 1ules on Criminal Procedure whichallows a warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest #People vs. Malmstedt, )*@ 0C1/ D2)$.

=H1:&1, premises considered, the demurrer to evidence in question is denied for lac- of merit.

/fter trial in due course, the assailed Judgment was rendered, the decretal portion of which reads4

=H1:&1, premises considered, the Court finds the accused, 1oel ncinada, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of theviolation of 0ection D, /rticle "", of 1epublic /ct o. +D' as amended by !atas Pambansa !ilang )(*, and hereby sentences

him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos #P'2,222.22$ without subsidiaryimprisonment in case of insolvency7 and to pay the costs.

3he mari6uana #hibit !$ involved in this case is hereby forfeited to the government to be destroyed or disposed of pursuantto present rules and regulations. 3he two plastic chairs #hibits < and <9)$ are also forfeited to the government.

&e Fa!ts

3ersion o- t&e 4rose!ution

3he 0olicitor Feneral, in the /ppelleeKs !rief, recounts the events leading to appellantKs arrest, as follows4 -

/t around D p.m. of May '2, )**', 0P&D icolas !olonia was in his house when he received a tip from an informant that 1oelncinada would be arriving in 0urigao City from Cebu City in the morning of May '), )**' on board the M5? 0weet Pearlbringing with him Bmari6uanaB. !olonia was then Chief of the ?ice Control 0quad of the 0urigao City Police #pp. '(9'*7 30,ovember '(, )**', >D9D27 p. )2, 30, May )D, )**>$.

!olonia already -new ncinada because the latter previously was engaged in illegal gambling -nown as Bbuloy9buloy.B /fter

receiving the tip, !olonia notified the members of his team A 0P&> Marcial 3iro, 0P&> Flen /bot and 0P&> Charlito <ueroA as well as his colleague 0P&D Cipriano "ligan, Jr., the chief of the "ntelligence and "nvestigation <ivision, of the informationhe received. !ecause the information came late, there was no more time to secure a search warrant #pp. >@7 30, ovember'(, )**', May )D, )**>, p. )>7 pp. D, )*7 30, March >, )**>$.

"n the early morning of May '), )**', !olonia, "ligan and other police officers deployed themselves in different strategic pointsat the city wharf to intercept ncinada. /t about @4) a.m. of the same day, the M5? 0weet Pearl finally doc-ed. 3he policeofficers saw ncinada wal- bris-ly down the gangplan-, carrying two small colored plastic baby chairs in his hand #p. )) 30,May )D, )**>7 pp. D, , )9)+ 30, March >, )**>7 pp. '*9>2 30, ovember '(, )**', pp. '*9>2$.

:rom their various positions, the police officers followed ncinada immediately boarded a tricycle at !orromeo 0treet, stillholding the plastic chairs. /s the tricycle slowly moved forward, !olonia chased it and ordered the driver to stop afteridentifying himself as a police officer. =hen the vehicle stopped, !olinia identified himself to ncinada and ordered him toalight from the tricycle. !olonia as-ed ncinada to hand over the plastic chairs, to which the latter complied #pp. , +, )( 30,March >, )**>, pp. >29>', > 30, ovember '(, )**'$.

!olonia noticed that there were two small chairs, one green and the other blue, stac-ed together and tied with a piece ofstring. !etween the stac- of chairs, there was a bul-y pac-age. !olonia eamined it closely and smelled the peculiar scent ofmari6uana. Ma-ing a small tear in the cellophane cover, !olonia could see and smell the what appeared to be Bmari6uana,B aprohibited drug #pp. +9* 30, March >, )**>, h. B!B, B<B and sub9mar-ings7 pp. >'9>D, >9>* 30, ovember '(, )**'$.

ncinada was brought to the central police station. !olonia, in the presence of one onoy ;erio who is a member of the localmedia and a friend of ncinada, opened the pac-age. "t was discovered that indeed, the contents consisted of dried leaves-nown as mari6uana. "n the course of the investigation, ncinada surrendered to !olonia his passenger tic-et issued by M5?0weet Pearl #pp. *9)) 30, March >, )**>, h. BB7 pp. >D9>, >*9D2 30, ovember '(, )**'$.

&n July )>, )**', !olonia brought the pac-age of dried leaves for eamination at the PP Crime ;aboratory at Campvangelista, Cagayan de &ro City. 3he forensic chemist, "nspector ?icente /rmada, tested the leaves and confirmed that theywere positive for mari6uana. However, the mari6uana only weighed +)2 grams, which /rmada opined to be probably due toshrin-age and moisture loss #pp. )'9)(, )*9'), 'D9D2, D)7 30, ovember '(, )**', h. B/B, B!B, BCB and sub9mar-ings.$

3ersion o- t&e 9e-ense

/ppellant sets up denial as his defense. "n his brief, he denied ownership and possession of said plastic baby chairs, as follows4

)$ "n the morning of May '), )**', at around @422 oKcloc- in the morning, more or less, the accused was seen to havedisembar-ed from M? 0weet Pearl after an overnight trip from Cebu City7

'$ 3he accused proceeded to the 0urigao PP/ Fate and boarded a motorela bound for his residence at ;ittle 3ondo, #withinthe City Proper$, 0urigao City. 3he Motorela was fully loaded with passengers, with the accused as the fourth passenger7

>$ =hen the motorela was already able to travel a distance of about ten #)2$ meters more or less, the same was forciblystopped by persons who ordered the passengers to disembar-ed #si! $. 3hereafter, all the #baggage$ of the passengers andthe driver were ordered to stand in a line for which a body search was made individually #si! $7

D$ /fter the search was made, the accused was singled out in the line and ordered to board the service vehicle of the policeand was brought to the PP Police 0tation.

!efore however the accused boarded the 6eep, he was openly protesting to the action ta-en by the police authorities and

demanded from the apprehending officers a copy of a search warrant and5or warrant of arrest for the search made and for hisapprehension7

$ "n the police headquarters, the accused was made to undergo custodial investigation for which a plastic bag was presentedto him allegedly containing the sub6ect mari6uana leaves. 3he accused denied that the said plastic bag belonged to him.

3he denial was witnessed by Mr. <aniel BonoyB ;erio, Jr. a member of the 0urigao City Press, who was invited by the Police"nvestigators to witness the presentation of the alleged mari6uana leaves, during the said investigation7

+$ /fter the custodial investigation, the accused was placed immediately behind bars and the "nformation for ?iolation of 1/+D' as amended by !atas Pambansa !lg. )(* was filed before the Court7

/side from appellant, the defense also presented five #$ other witnesses whose testimony allegedly established the following4 &



@.a$ 1uben Concha A the driver of the motorela who testified that he was surprised when the motorela he was driving wasforcibly stopped #while already in motion$ by the police authorities while directing his four #D$ passengers, #> males and )female$ to disembar-ed #si! $ together with their #baggage$.

3hat after the search was made, the accused was singled out, and despite the protests made, was ordered to board the Policeservice vehicle, while the ' other male passengers 6ust left the scene while the female passenger continued to board themotorela who directed him to proceed to the residence of !aby ncinada to verify whether the person pic-ed up by the policeauthorities was related to the latter7

@.b$ Josephine odalo A testified that she is a beautician, and that she was one of the four #D$ passengers of the motoreladriven by 1uben Concha, which motorela was forcibly stopped by men who are chasing it after travelling a distance of to )2meters away from its loading area near the PP/ Fate.

/ll the four #D$ passengers were ordered to disembar-ed #si! $ from the motorela whereupon they were all sub6ected to bodysearch including their #baggage$.

3hat it was the male passenger who was sitting at the rear portion of the motorela who was pic-ed up by the Police /uthoritiesand despite the protests made was ordered to board the Police service vehicle.

Epon learning from the persons who were gathered at the scene, that the one who was pic-ed up was the son of Mr.ncinada, the latter boarded bac- the motorela and directed the driver to proceed to the residence of the ncinadaKs at ;ittle3ondo to verify whether it was really their son who was pic-ed up by the police authorities. 0he made this, as Mrs. ncinada,#the mother of the accused$ is his #regular$ customer7

@.c$ Mr. <aniel BonoyB ;erio, Jr. A testified that, being a member of the Press, he was requested by the police authorities towitness the custodial investigation conducted upon the person of the accused, who, during the entire proceedings of theinvestigation vehemently denied having any -nowledge about the mari6uana leaves placed inside the plastic bag7

@.d$ "sabelita ncinada A testified that she was informed by her manicurist #Josephine odalo$ about the arrest . . . #of$ herson, somewhere at the PP/ Port /rea and upon being informed, she and her husband immediately went to the 0urigao PPHeadquarters to verify the#news$ . . . 7

Ruling o- t&e rial Court

3he trial court re6ected appellantKs claim that he was merely an innocent passenger and that his pac-age contained mangoand otap samples, not mari6uana. mphasizing that the 0urigao City Police had no ill motive against appellant, the trial court gavecredence to 0P&D !oloniaKs story that he actually received from his police asset the information regarding appellantKs arrival in 0urigaoCity. 3he trial court further emphasized that appellant was caught carrying mari6uana in -lagrante deli!to. Hence, the warrantless searchfollowing his lawful arrest was valid and the mari6uana obtained was admissible in evidence.

Assignment o- 5rrors

"n his !rief, appellant submits the following assignment of errors4(

". 3he lower court erred in finding that the accused was caught in -lagranti #si! $ deli!to in possession of the sub6ect mari6uanaleaves and is the one responsible in transporting the same7

"". 3he lower court gravely erred in finding that search and the arrest of the accused without a warrant would fall under thedoctrine of warrantless search as incident to a lawful arrest A

""". 3he lower court gravely erred in finding that the sub6ect mari6uana leaves is admissible in evidence A

"n short, the main issues are #)$ the sufficiency of the evidence showing possession of mari6uana by appellant and #'$ the validity of thesearch conducted on the person and belongings of the appellant.

&e Courts Ruling

3he petition is meritorious.

First Issue4 Illegal 4ossession o- 4ro&iited 9rugs

/ppellant claims that the prosecution failed to prove his possession and ownership of the plastic baby chairs. He contends that thetestimonies of !olonia and "ligan conflicted as to the number of passengers riding the motorela. 0uch alleged conflict is peripheral andirrelevant. Hence, it deserves scant consideration. /ppellant adds that such testimonies also conflicted as to the place where appellantsat inside the motorela. 3his claim, aside from being flimsy, is also not supported by the transcript of stenographic notes.

"n his testimony, appellant vehemently denied possession of the plastic baby chairs, stressing that he was not holding them when thesearch was conducted. However, his denial is easily rebutted by !oloniaKs testimony4 1

4 =hen you saw 1oel ncinada who disembar-ed from M5? 0weet Pearl, what did you observe in hisperson, if any

/4 He was carrying a #si! $ baby chairs.

4 =hat -ind of chairs

/4 / #si! $ plastic chairs.

4 /fter you saw 1oel ncinada disembar-ed #si! $ from the boat, what did you and your companions do

/4 =e followed him behind because we posted in the different direction#s$ in the wharf.

4 8ou said you followed 1oel ncinada, what happened net when you followed him

/4 " saw 1oel ncinada too- #si! $ a ride with a motorcycle so " chased him and let him stopped #si! $.

4 !y the way, where was #si! $ this #si! $ two plastic chairs placed in the motorize tricycle



/4 He was sitting at the bac- of the motor at the right portion of the seat and the chairs was #si! $ placedbesides him. #G=itness indicating that he was sitting #si! $ an imaginary seat at the bac- of the motor andholding an #si! $ imaginary chairs with his left arm$.

!etween these two contentions, the choice of the trial court prevails because this is a matter that involves credibility of witnesses. &nthis sub6ect of credibility, the opinion of the trial court deserves great respect as it was in a better position to observe the demeanor anddeportment of the witnesses on the stand7 ' hence, it was in a superior situation to assess their testimonies.

:urthermore, proof of ownership of the mari6uana is not necessary in the prosecution of illegal drug cases7 2 it is sufficient that suchdrug is found in appellantKs possession.

"e!ond Issue4 Illegal "ear!& and "ei$ure

!ased on the foregoing discussion, appellantKs conviction could have been affirmed by this Court. However, the very evidenceimplicating him A the prohibited drugs found in his possession A cannot be used against him in this case or, for that matter, in Banyproceeding.B

Fenerally, a search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured warrant7 otherwise, such search and seizure is sub6ect tochallenge. 0 0ection ', /rticle """ of the )*@( Constitution, is apropos4

0ec. '. 3he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches andseizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issueecept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the 6udge after eamination under oath or affirmation of thecomplainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons orthings to be seized.

/ny evidence obtained in violation of this provision is legally inadmissible in evidence as a Bfruit of the poisonous tree.B 3his principle iscovered by this eclusionary rule4

0ec. >. . . .

#'$ /ny evidence obtained in violation of . . . the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

3he plain import of the foregoing provision is that a search and seizure is normally unlawful unless authorized by a validly issuedsearch warrant or warrant of arrest. 3his protection is based on the principle that, between a citizen and the police, the magistratestands as a mediator, nay, an authority clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants or warrants or arrest. 3

3he right against warrantless searches, however, is sub6ect to legal and 6udicial eceptions, as follows4 #)$ search incidental to a lawfularrest, #'$ search of moving vehicles, #>$ seizure in plain view, #D$ customs searches, and #$ waiver by the accused themselves of theirright against unreasonable search and seizure. / "n these cases, the search and seizure may be made only upon probable cause asthe essential requirement. /lthough the term eludes eact definition, probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicionsupported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious manKs belief that the person accused is guilty of theoffense with which he is charged7 or the eistence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudentman to believe that an offense has been committed and that the item#s$, article#s$ or ob6ect#s$ sought in connection with said offense orsub6ect to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched. &-

"n this case, !olonia received at D422 p.m. on May '2, )**' an intelligence report that appellant who was carrying mari6uana wouldarrive the net morning aboard the M5? "'eet 4earl

. /lthough such report could have been the basis of probable cause, !oloniaeplained that he could not secure a warrant because the courts in 0urigao City were already closed for the day. 3hus, he and the otherlawmen had no choice but to proceed the net morning to the port area. /fter appellant disembar-ed from the ship and rodea motorela, !olonia stopped the motor vehicle and conducted the search. He rummaged through the two strapped plastic baby chairswhich were held by appellant and found inserted between them a pac-age of mari6uana wrapped in a small plastic envelope.

/ppellant contended before the lower court that the warrantless search of his belongings was proscribed by the Constitution. !ut thetrial 6udge re6ected this contention, opining that appellant was caught in -lagrante deli!to at the time of his arrest. Hence, it concludedthat the warrantless search conducted after his Blawful arrestB was valid and that the mari6uana was admissible in evidence.

1ule ))>, 0ection , discusses the instances when a warrantless arrest may be effected, as follows4

0ec. . Arrest 'it&out 'arrant 7 '&en la'-ul . A / peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person4

#a$ =hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an

offense7

#b$ =hen an offense has in fact 6ust been committed, and he has personal -nowledge of facts indicating that the person to bearrested has committed it7 and

#c$ =hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is servingfinal 6udgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinementto another.

"n this case, appellant was not committing a crime in the presence of the 0urigao City policemen. Moreover, the lawmen did not havepersonal -nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had committed an offense. 3he search cannot be said to bemerely incidental to a lawful arrest. 1aw intelligence information is not a sufficient ground for a warrantless arrest. !oloniaKs testimonyshows that the search preceded the arrest4 &

4 8ou said you followed 1oel ncinada, what happened net when you followed him

/4 " saw 1oel ncinada too- #si! $ a ride with a motorcycle so " chased him and let him stopped #si! $.

4 8ou said you stopped the motor tricycle in which 1oel ncinada #si! $ riding, what did you do

/4 /t first " identified myself to the driver and to some of the passengers.

4 /nd after that, what happened net

/4 " requested 1eel ncinada to disembar- from the motor tricycle because of that information given to us inhis possession.



4 Possession of what

/4 Possession of mari6uana, 0ir.

4 /nd 1oel ncinada alighted from the motor vehicle

/4 8es, 0ir.

4 /fter 1oel ncinada alighted from the motor tricycle, what happened net

/4 " requested to him to see his chairs that he carried.

Contrary to the trial courtKs ruling, 4eople %s. anglien && is factually inapplicable to the case at bar. 3he prosecutionKs evidence did not

show any suspicious behavior when the appellant disembar-ed from the ship or while he rode the motorela. o act or factdemonstrating a felonious enterprise could be ascribed to appellant under such bare circumstances.

=e disagree with the trial courtKs 6ustification for the search4

3he arrest of the accused without warrant was lawful because there was a probable cause or ground for his apprehension.3he police had received reliable, albeit confidential information from their informant that 1oel ncinada would be bringing inmari6uana from Cebu City on board the M5? 0weet Pearl. Enfortunately there was no more time for the police to apply for andsecure a search warrant as the information was received late in the afternoon of May '2, )**' and the accused was epectedto arrive at seven oKcloc- the following morning. 3he different courts were closed by then. evertheless the police feltconstrained to act on the valuable piece of information.

ven if the information was received by !olonia about D422 p.m. of May '2, )**' at his house, there was sufficient time to secure awarrant of arrest, as the M5? "'eet 4earl was not epected to doc- until (.22 a.m. the following day. /dministrative Circular o. )>allows applications for search warrants even after court hours4

>. 1affling shall be strictly enforced, ecept only in case where an application for search warrant may be

filed directly with any 6udge in whose 6urisdiction the place to be searched is located, a-ter o--i!e &ours, orduring "aturda/s, "unda/s, and legal &olida/s, in which case the applicant is required to certify under oaththe urgency of the issuance thereof after office hours, or during 0aturdays, 0undays and legal holidays7#mphasis supplied$

3he same procedural dispatch finds validation and reiteration in Circular o. )*, series of )*@(, entitled B/mended Fuidelines andProcedures on /pplications for 0earch =arrants for "llegal Possession of :irearms and &ther 0erious Crimes :iled in Metro ManilaCourts and &ther Courts with Multiple 0alasB4

3his Court has received reports of delay while awaiting raffle, in acting on applications for search warrants in the campaignagainst loose firearms and other serious crimes affecting peace and order. 3here is a need for prompt action on suchapplications for search warrant. /ccordingly, these amended guidelines in the issuance of a search warrant are issued4

). /ll applications for search warrants relating to %iolation o- t&e Anti7su%ersion A!t, !rimes against puli! order as de-ined int&e Re%ised 4enal Code, as amended, illegal possession o- -irearms and8or ammunition and %iolations o- t&e 9angerous9rugs A!t o- ():2, as amended, s&all no longer e ra--led and shallimmediatel/ be ta-en cognizance of and acted upon by

the 5;e!uti%e Judge of the 1egional 3rial Court, Metropolitan 3rial Court, and Municipal 3rial Court under whose 6urisdictionthe place to be searched is located.

'. "n the absence of the ecutive Judge, the 3i!e75;e!uti%e Judge shall ta-e cognizance of and personall/ act on the same."n the absence of the ecutive Judge or ?ice9ecutive Judge, the application may be ta-en cognizance of and acted uponby an/ 6udge of the Court where the application is filed.

>. /pplications filed a-ter o--i!e &ours, during "aturda/s, "unda/s and &olida/s, s&all li#e'ise e ta#en !ogni$an!e o- anda!ted upon / an/ <udge o- t&e Court &a%ing <urisdi!tion o- t&e pla!e to e sear!&ed , but in such cases the applicant shallcertify and state the facts under oath, to the satisfaction of the 6udge, that its issuance is urgent.

D. /ny 6udge acting on such application shall immediately and without delay personally conduct the eamination of theapplicant and his witnesses to prevent the possible lea-age of information. He shall observe the procedures, safeguards, andguidelines for the issuance of search warrants provided for in this CourtKs /dministrative Circular o. )>, dated &ctober ),)*@.

"n 4eople %s. Aminnudin, the Court declared as inadmissible in evidence the mari6uana found in appellantKs possession during a searchwithout a warrant, because it had been illegally seized. 3he Court firmly struc- down the policemenKs cavalier disregard for the !ill of1ights, eplaining4

3he present case presented no urgency. :rom the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at leasttwo days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search /minnudin who was coming to "loilo on the M5?=ilcon *. His name was -nown. 3he vehicle was identified. 3he date of its arrival was certain. /nd from the information theyhad received, they could have persuaded a 6udge that there was probable cause, indeed, to 6ustify the issuance of a warrant.8et they did nothing. o effort was made to comply with the law. 3he !ill of 1ights was ignored altogether because the PClieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority that a Bsearch warrant was notnecessary.B

;awmen cannot be allowed to violate the very law they are epected to enforce. !oloniaKs receipt of the intelligence informationregarding the culpritKs identity, the particular crime he allegedly committed and his eact whereabouts underscored the need to secure awarrant for his arrest. !ut he failed or neglected to do so. 0uch failure or neglect cannot ecuse him from violating a constitutional rightof the appellant.

"t is significant that the 0olicitor Feneral does not share the trial 6udgeKs opinion. 3a-ing a totally different approach to 6ustify the search,the 1epublicKs counsel avers that appellant voluntarily handed the chairs containing the pac-age of mari6uana to the arresting officerand thus effectively waived his right against the warrantless search. 3his, he gleaned from !oloniaKstestimony4 &(

4 /fter 1oel ncinada alighted from the motor tricycle, what happened net

/4 " requested to him to see his chairs that he carried.

4 /re you referring to the two plastic chairs

/4 8es, 0ir.



4 !y the way, when 1oel ncinada agreed to allow you to eamine the two plastic chairs that he carried,what did you do net

/4 " eamined the chairs and " noticed that something inside in between the two chairs.

=e are not convinced. =hile in principle we agree that consent will validate an otherwise illegal search, we believe that appellant Abased on the transcript quoted above A did not voluntarily consent to !oloniaKs search of his belongings. /ppellantKs silence should notbe lightly ta-en as consent to such search. &1 3he implied acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more thanmere passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all within the purviewof the constitutional guarantee. &' :urthermore, considering that the search was conducted irregularly, i .e, without a warrant, we cannotappreciate consent based merely on the presumption of regularity of the performance of duty.

/ppellantKs alleged acquiescence should be distinguished from the consent appreciated in the recent case of 4eople %s. La!erna. &2 "nsaid case, the search was conducted at a validly established chec-point and was made in the regular performance of the policemenKsduty. /lthough it became intrusive when the policemen opened his baggage, it was validated by the consent of appellant, who testifiedin open court that he allowed such search because he had nothing to hide. "n the present case, there was no chec-point established.3he policemen stopped the motorela and forthwith sub6ected the passengers to a search of their persons and baggage. "n contrast tothe accused in ;acerna, herein appellant testified that he openly ob6ected to the search by as-ing for a warrant.

=ithout the illegally seized prohibited drug, the appellantKs conviction cannot stand. 3here is simply no sufficient evidence remaining toconvict him. 3hat the search disclosed a prohibited substance in appellantKs possession, and thus confirmed the police officersK initialinformation and suspicion, did not cure its patent illegality. /n illegal search cannot be underta-en and then an arrest effected on thestrength of the evidence yielded by the search.

=e should stress that the Court is not unmindful of the difficulties of law enforcement agencies in suppressing the illegal traffic ofdangerous drugs. However, quic- solutions of crimes and apprehensions of malefactors do not 6ustify a callous disregard of the !ill of1ights. ;aw enforcers are required to follow the law and to respect the peopleKs rights. &therwise, their efforts becomecounterproductive. =e remind them of this recent ehortation by this Court4 &0

. . . "n the final analysis, we in the administration of 6ustice would have no right to epect ordinary people to be law9abiding ifwe do not insist on the full protection of their rights. 0ome lawmen, prosecutors and 6udges may still tend to gloss over anillegal search and seizure as long as the law enforcers show the alleged evidence of the crime regardless of the methods bywhich they were obtained. 3his -ind of attitude condones law9brea-ing in the name of law enforcement. "ronically, it onlyfosters the more rapid brea-down of our system of 6ustice, and the eventual denigration of society. =hile this Courtappreciates and encourages the efforts of law enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of society,we nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the parameters set by the Constitution and the law.3ruly, the end never 6ustifies the means.

=H1:&1, the appeal is hereby F1/3<. 3he assailed <ecision is 1?10< and 03 /0"<. /ppellant is /CE"33<.Enless convicted for any other crime or detained for some lawful reason, /ppellant 1oel ncinada is &1<1< 1;/0<immediately.

0& &1<1<.

PEOP"E GS. )E" ROSARIO &(1 SCRA &12 $.R. NO. -/2(( &- JU" //1K


6a*ts@ /ccused was charged and convicted by the trial court of illegal possession of firearms and illegal possession and sale of drugs,particularly methamphetamine or shabu. /fter the issuance of the search warrant, which authorized the search and seizure of anundetermined quantity of methamphetamine and its paraphernaliaSs, an entrapment was planned that led to the arrest of del 1osarioand to the seizure of the shabu, its paraphernaliaSs and of a .'' caliber pistol with > live ammunition.

Issue@ =hether or ot the seizure of the firearms was proper.

Hed@ o. 0ec ' art. """ of the constitution specifically provides that a search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized."n herein case, the only ob6ects to be seized that the warrant determined was the methamphetamine and the paraphernaliaSs therein.

3he seizure of the firearms was unconstitutional.

=herefore the decision is reversed and the accused is acquitted.

THE PEOP"E O6 THE PHI"IPPINES, <aintiff%a<<eee, 4s.

NORMAN)O )E" ROSARIO Y "OPE#, a**used%a<<eant. $.R. No. -/2(( Juy &-, //1

M;&, J.4

ormando del 1osario was charged before !ranch )( of the 1egional 3rial Court of the :ourth Judicial 1egion stationed in Cavite Citywith "llegal Possession of :irearm and /mmunitions in Criminal Case o. '>+9*) and "llegal 0ale of 1egulated <rugs in Criminal Caseo. '>(9*), under two informations reading, respectively, as follows4

Criminal Case o. '>+9*)

3hat on or about 0eptember D, )**), in the City of Cavite, 1epublic of the Philippines and within the 6urisdiction of this Honorable Court,the above9named accused, without legal authority, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and -nowingly have in hispossession and control a homemade #palti-$caliber .'' revolver with three #>$ live ammunition.

Contrary to law.

Criminal Case o. '>(9*)

3hat on or about 0eptember D, )**), in the City of Cavite, 1epublic of the Philippines and within the 6urisdiction of this Honorable Court,the above9named accused, without legal authority, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and -nowingly sell to a poseurbuyer an aluminum foil containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride also -nown as B0habuB, a regulated drug.



Contrary to law.

#pp. '29'), 1ollo.$

Epon arraignment, accused9appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges, and after 6oint trial of the two cases, the court a quo rendereda decision, the dispositive portion of which reads4

=H1:&1, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused ormando del 1osario y ;opez guilty beyond reasonable doubt inthe above9entitled cases and he is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment4 in Crim. Case o. '>+9*) for ?iolation of P.<. )@++ of0eventeen #)($ years, :our #D$ months and &ne #)$ day of reclusion temporal, as minimum to 3wenty #'2$ years of reclusion temporal,as maimum and in Crim. Case o. '>(9*) for a violation of 0ection ), /rticle """ of 1epublic /ct +D', as amended of lifeimprisonment and to pay a fine of P>2,222.22, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs in both

cases.

3he shabu, the &ne Hundred Peso bill and other paraphernalia are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government.

#pp. '@9'*, 1ollo.$

:rom said decision, the instant appeal has been interposed.

3he prosecutionKs version of the case, as set forth in appelleeKs brief, is as follows4

Epon application of 0P&> 1aymundo Entiveros of the Philippine ational Police #PP$ of Cavite City, 1egional 3rial Court Judge /rturo de Fuia issued in the morning of 0eptember D, )**) a search warrant

#h. 3, p. 2, 1ec.A Crim. Case o. '>(9*)$ authorizing the search and seizure of an Bundetermined quantity of MethamphetamineHydrochloride commonly -nown as shabu and its paraphernaliasB in the premises of appellantKs house located at @'@ 1. !asa 0t., 0an1oque, Cavite City. However, the search warrant was not implemented immediately due to the lac- of police personnel to form theraiding team #pp. D, (, tsn., :eb. D, )**'$.

/t about * oKcloc- in the evening of that day, a raiding team was finally organized. 0P&> Entiveros headed the raiding team with P&>1ogelio :rancisco, 0P&) duardo overo, 0P&> 1eynaldo de la Cruz, P&) Carlito !arbuco, P&> &nrubio and 0P&' ?illegas asmembers

#pp. , )2, tsn., :eb. D, )**'7 p. (, tsn., <ec. )), )**)$.

"n the final briefing of the raiding team at the police station, it was agreed upon that P&) ?enerando ;una will buy shabu from appellantand after his return from appellantKs house, the raiding team will implement the search warrant #p. )2, tsn., :eb. D, )**'7 pp. )(9)@, tsn.,<ec. )), )**)$. / mar-ed money consisting of a P)22 bill bearing serial no. P >'*D2+

#h. P, p. ), 1ec.$ was given by the 0tation Commander to P&) ;una and entered in the police logboo- #p. )', :eb. D, )**'$. P&);una with a companion proceeded to appellantKs house to implement the search warrant. !arangay Capt. Maigue, orma del 1osarioand appellant witnessed the search at appellantKs house #p. )2, tsn., <ec. )), )**)$. 0P&> de la Cruz and P&> :rancisco found ablac- canister containing shabu, an aluminum foil, a palti- .'' caliber #h. &$ atop the 3? set, three used ammunitions in a cup and

three wallets #hs. , 1, 0$, one containing the mar-ed money #h. P7 pp. ))9)', tsn., <ec. )), )**'$. 0P&) overo found inside ashow bo aluminum foils, nap-ins and a burner #p. *, tsn., March )), )**'$. 0P&> de la Cruz turned over the wallet containing themar-ed money to P&> &nrubio #p. @, >', tsn., Jan. (, )**'$. 3he seized items were photographed thereat by :red /gana and thenturned over to P&> &nrubio #pp. @, >', tsn., Jan. (, )**'$. 0P&> Entiveros issued receipts #hs. ?, ?9), pp. >9D, 1ec.$ for theseized items with !arangay Capt. Maigue and appellantKs sister orma as signing witnesses. He also made a return #h. E, p. ',1ec.$ of the seized items to the court #pp. ))9), tsn., :eb. )@, )**'.$.

/t police station, the seized items were taped and initialed by 0P&> de la Cruz #p. >>, tsn., Jan. (, )**'$. 3he net day, 0P&D Pilapil,through P&) !arbuco, forwarded to !" :orensic Chemist Mary /nn /ranas for laboratory analysis the aluminum foil #hs. /, J, pp.>(, D+, 1ec.$ containing suspected shabu bought by P&) ;una from appellant in the

buy9bust operation as well as the aluminum foils #hs. F, I, pp. D>, D(, 1ec.$ containing suspected mari6uana which were confiscatedby virtue of the search warrant.

3he findings of !" :orensic Chemist /ranas disclosed that all the specimen submitted to her for laboratory analysis by 0P&) Pilapil,thru P&) !arbuco, gave positive results for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride #pp. '9*, tsn., <ec. >, )**)7 h. !, C, H, ", pp. >@, >*,

DD, D, 1ec.$.#pp. )2'9)2, 1ollo.$

Carefully evaluating the evidence on record, we believe that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused9appellant. Much isto be desired in the manner the police authorities effected the arrest of accused9appellant and the same observation may be made withregard to the way the prosecution conducted its case.

:oremost among the inadequacies of the prosecution is its failure to call to the witness stand P&) ?enerando ;una, the allegedposeur9buyer. 3here is, thus, a total absence of evidence to establish the purported sale of shabu by accused9appellant to ?enerando;una, the supposed poseur9buyer. 3he omission to present the poseur9buyer casts serious doubts that an illegal sale of a dangerousdrug actually too- place.

3he trial court gave much weight to the testimonies of the police members of the buy9bust operation. However, the prosecution did notpresent as witness the supposed poseur9buyer. 0uch omission casts serious doubt on appellantKs guilt because without the testimonyof the

poseur9buyer, there is no convincing evidence to show that appellant sold mari6uana. 3he testimonies of the rest of the buy9bustoperation are hearsay in view of the fact that the poseur9buyer, was never presented at the trial. 3here was even no testimony thatwhen the accused9appellant handed the stuff to the poseur9buyer that the latter in turn handed the mar-ed money. 3he failure of theprosecution to present the alleged buyer of the mari6uana was a fatal flaw in the case against the accused.

#People vs. :ulgarillas, ')' 0C1/ (+, @2 G)**'$

3he testimony of prosecution witness P&> 1ogelio :rancisco that ?eneracion ;una, the alleged Poseur9buyer, bought shabu fromaccused9appellant was derived solely from what ;una supposedly told him #pp. )*9'2, tsn., <ecember )), )**)$ and, therefore, ispatently hearsay evidence, without any evidentiary weight whatsoever. ;i-ewise, the statements of prosecution witnesses Policemen1eynaldo de la Cruz, 1aymundo Entiveros, and duardo overa, Jr. as to the alleged sale of shabu are hearsay, without weight, as allof them were not present during the alleged sale.



/ccording to the version of the prosecution, during the alleged buy9bust operation, accused9appellant handed over to ?eneracion ;una,the alleged poseur9buyer, a quantity of shabu, and ;una in turn paid accused9appellant a mar-ed P)22 bill and then returned to thepolice station and informed the raiding team that he had already bought the shabu from accused9appellant. 3hereupon, the raidingteam proceeded to the house of accused9appellant to implement the search warrant. 3he version of the prosecution is highly incredible.3he record is devoid of any reason why the police officers did not ma-e any attempt to arrest accused9appellant at the time he allegedlysold the shabu to ?eneracion ;una who was accompanied by another police officer. 3hat was the opportune moment to arrestaccused9appellant. 3he version foisted by the prosecution upon this Court is contrary to human eperience in the ordinary course ofhuman conduct. 3he usual procedure in a buy9bust operation is for the police officers to arrest the pusher of drugs at the very momenthe hands over the dangerous drug to the poseur9buyer. 3hat is the very reason why such a police operation is called a Bbuy9bustBoperation. 3he police poseur9buyer BbuysB dangerous drugs from the pusher and BbustsB #arrests$ him the moment the pusher handsover the drug to the police officer.

=e thus entertain serious doubts that the shabu contained in a small canister was actually seized or confiscated at the residence ofaccused9appellant. "n consequence, the manner the police officers conducted the subsequent and much9delayed search is highlyirregular. Epon bargaining into the residence of accused9appellant, the police officers found him lying down and they immediatelyarrested and detained him in the living room while they searched the other parts of the house. /lthough they fetched two persons towitness the search, the witnesses were called in only after the policemen had already entered accused9appellantKs residence #pp. ''9'>, tsn, <ecember )), )**)$, and, therefore, the policemen had more than ample time to plant the shabu. Corollary to the constitutionalprecept that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved #0ec. )D#'$, /rticle """,Constitution of the 1epublic of the Philippines$ is the rule that in order to convict an accused the circumstances of the case musteclude all and each and every hypothesis consistent with his innocence #People vs. 3anchoco7 (+ Phil. D+> G)*D+7 People vs.Constante, )' 0C1/ +> G)*+D7 People vs. Jara, )DD 0C1/ )+ G)*@+$. 3he facts of the case do not rule out the hypothesis thataccused9 appellant is innocent.

/t any rate, accused9appellant cannot be convicted of possession of the shabu contained in a canister and allegedly seized at hishouse, for the charge against him was for selling shabu with the information alleging that the Baccused, without legal authority did . . .

sell to a poseur buyer an aluminum foil containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride . . .B 0ale is totally different from possession. /rticle)D@ of the Civil Code defines sale as a contract whereby Bone of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership ofand to deliver a determine thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalentB, while Bpossession is theholding of a thing or the en6oyment of a rightB as defined by /rticle '> of the Civil Code. /ccused9appellant cannot be convicted of acrime which is not charged in the information for to do so would deny him the due process of law #People vs. <espavellador, ) 0C1/'2 G)*+)7 People vs. Mori, 0C1/ >@' G)*(D$.

either can accused9appellant be convicted of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. 3he search warrant implemented by theraiding party authorized only the search and seizure of B. . . the described quantity of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly-nown as shabu and its paraphernaliaB #h. &, p. 2, original record$. 3hus, the raiding party was authorized to seize only shabu andparaphernalia for the use thereof and no other. / search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to underta-e afinishing epedition to seize and confiscate any and all -inds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. 3he Constitution itself #0ection', /rticle """$ and the 1ules of Court #0ection >, 1ule )'+$ specifically mandate that the search warrant must particularly describe thethings to be seized. 3hus, the search warrant was no authority for the police officers to seize the firearm which was not mentioned,

much less described with particularity, in the search warrant. either may it be maintained that the gun was seized in the course of anarrest, for as earlier observed, accused9appellantKs arrest was far from regular and legal. 0aid firearm, having been illegally seized, thesame is not admissible in evidence #0tonehill vs. <io-no, '2 0C1/ >@> G)*+($. 3he Constitution epressly ordains the eclusion inevidence of illegally seized articles.

/ny evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

#0ection >G', /rticle """, Constitution of the 1epublic of the Philippines$.

=ith the eclusion in evidence of the illegally seized firearm, there is, therefore, a total absence of evidence to support the charge ofillegal possession of firearm, against accused9appellant.

3he same may be said of the charge of illegal possession of ammunition.

=H1:&1, the decision appealed from is hereby 1?10< and accused9appellant is hereby /CE"33< in Criminal Case o.'>+9*) and Criminal Case o. '>(9*).

3he immediate release of accused9appellant is hereby ordered unless there eists a pending valid cause against him.3he shabu, the mar-ed P)22 bill, firearm, and ammunition are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government.

0& &1<1<.

Peo<e 4s. 6igueroa

:acts43he accused was charged with "llegal Possession of :irearms and /mmunitions and and of 1/ +D and subsequently

convicted by the 13C !r. '> of 3rece Martires in Cavite.=hile serving the warrant of arrest, the officers noticed, strewn around, aluminum foil pac-ages of different sizes in the sala.

0uspecting thus the presence of BshabuB in the premises, the arresting officers requested appellant, as well as his brother and sister, to

acquiesce to a search of the house. 3he search yielded a .D caliber pistol, a magazine, seven live ammunitions, and a match bocontaining an aluminum foil pac-age with Bshabu.B Confronted, :igueroa denied ownership of the items. /n inventory was conducted bythe PC team, attested to by !arangay Captain !igornia, of the seized items.

3he accused questions the admissibility in evidence of the firearm and confiscated ammunition for it was discovered during awarrantless search.

"ssue4=as their an unlawful warrantless search and seizure.

Held4o. the search and seizure of the articles sought is a valid being a search incidental to an arrest.3he .D caliber pistol, magazine and rounds of ammunition were not unlawfully obtained. =hile the 0C might concede difficulty

in readily accepting the statement of the prosecution that the search was conducted with consent freely given by appellant and



members of his household, it should be pointed out, in any case, that the search and seizure was done admittedly on the occasion of alawful arrest.

/ significant eception from the necessity for a search warrant is when the search and seizure is effected as an incident to alawful arrest.

/s a doctrine in 6urisprudence, the warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspectKs lawful arrest, may etendbeyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surrounding under his immediate control. &b6ects in the \plain viewK ofan officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are sub6ect to seizure and may be presented as evidence.B

PEOP"E GS. MUSA &0 SCRA '/0 $.,R. NO. /200 &0 JAN //(K

:riday, :ebruary 2+, '22* Posted by Coffeeholic =rites


6a*ts@ / civilian informer gave the information that Mari Musa was engaged in selling mari6uana in 0uterville, %amboanga City. 0gt. /niwas ordered by /1C&M leader 350gt. !elarga, to conduct a surveillance and test buy on Musa. 3he civilian informer guided /ni toMusaSs house and gave the description of Musa. /ni was able to buy one newspaper9wrapped dried mari6uana for P)2.22.

3he net day, a buy9bust was planned. /ni was to raise his right hand if he successfully buys mari6uana from Musa. /s /ni proceededto the house, the /1C&M team positioned themselves about *2 to )22 meters away. :rom his position, !elarga could see what wasgoing on. Musa came out of the house and as-ed /ni what he wanted. /ni said he wanted more mari6uana and gave Musa the P'2.22mar-ed money. Musa went into the house and came bac-, giving /ni two newspaper wrappers containing dried mari6uana. /ni openedand inspected it. He raised his right hand as a signal to the other /1C&M agents, and the latter moved in and arrested Musa insidethe house. !elarga fris-ed Musa in the living room but did not find the mar-ed money #gave it to his wife who slipped away$. 350gt.!elarga and 0gt. ;ego went to the -itchen and found a Wcellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the corner of the -itchen.S 3heyas-ed Musa about its contents but failed to get a response. 0o they opened it and found dried mari6uana leaves inside. Musa was thenplaced under arrest.

Issue@ =hether or ot the seizure of the plastic bag and the mari6uana inside it is unreasonable, hence, inadmissible as evidence.

Hed@ 8es. "t constituted unreasonable search and seizure thus it may not be admitted as evidence. 3he warrantless search andseizure, as an incident to a suspectSs lawful arrest, may etend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises orsurroundings under his immediate control. &b6ects in the Wplain viewS of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have thatview are sub6ect to seizure and may be presented as evidence. 3he Wplain viewS doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is notsearching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating ob6ect. "t will not 6ustify theseizure of the ob6ect where the incriminating nature of the ob6ect is not apparent from the Wplain viewS of the ob6ect.

"n the case at bar, the plastic bag was not in the Wplain viewS of the police. 3hey arrested the accused in the living room and moved intothe -itchen in search for other evidences where they found the plastic bag. :urthermore, the mari6uana inside the plastic bag was notimmediately apparent from the Wplain viewS of said ob6ect.

3herefore, the Wplain viewS does not apply. 3he plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be presented in evidence pursuant to /rticle""" 0ection > #'$ of the Constitution.

PEOP"E O6 THE PHI"IPPINES, <aintiff%a<<eee, 4s. A"EJAN)RO ES$UERRA Y SEMINIANO, a**used%a<<eant.

$.R. No. /0/'/. A<ri 0, //(.

08;;/!E0

). C1"M"/; ;/=7 </F1&E0 <1EF /C3 #1/ +D'$7 ";;F/; 0/; &: P1&H"!"3< <1EF7 ;M30. A 3he prosecutionhas proven with certainty all the elements necessary for a charge of illegal sale of mari6uana which are4 #)$ the identity of the buyer and

the seller, the ob6ect, the consideration7 and #'$ the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore #People v. 1umeral, '22 0C1/)*D G)**)$. 0uffice it to say that there was no need for the policemen to concoct a story with regard to the other mari6uana tea bagsrecovered at the police station.

'. "<7 "<.7 "<.7 <&0 &3 1E"1 :/M";"/1"38 !3= !E81 /< 0;;1. A /ccused9appellant contends that becausehe and the poseur9buyer had not previously met, it would have been foolhardy for him to fearlessly enter into an illegal transaction witha complete stranger. 3he argument is baseless. "t is a well9settled rule in this 6urisdiction that what matters is not the eisting familiaritybetween the buyer and the drug user, but rather the agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery #People v. :ernandez, '2*0C1/ ) G)**'7 People v. Mendoza, F.1. o. *'>@(, <ec. )@, )**'$. "n People v. 1umeral #'22 0C1/ )*D G)**)$, this Court held thatdrug pushers, especially small quantity or retail pushers sell their prohibited wares to anyone who has the price for the drug, be theystrangers or not.

>. 1M<"/; ;/=7 C1"M"/; P1&C<E17 /11037 <&0 &3 1E"1 / "MM<"/3 !&<8 0/1CH & /0E0PC3< &::<17 C/0 /3 !/1. A / number of causes may eist why no immediate body search of a suspected offenderis done in any particular arrest. 3he most obvious, we suppose, is lac- of proper training on the part of the arresting officer or officers. "tcould also happen that the arresting officers may conclude that the offender poses no danger and that it would be best to defer to a

later time a more thorough body search to be conducted in the presence of witnesses thus obviating any later charge of evidence9planting. 3his was what probably happened in the instant case. /s the 0olicitor Feneral correctly points out, accused9appellant did notpose an imminent danger to the law enforcers because he was clearly outnumbered by the policemen. "t may not be amiss then toconclude that there was no need to fris- accused9appellant for any hidden weapon or other evidence. =hat is significant is thataccused9appellant was caught red9handed in the act of selling the prohibited item.

D. "<.7 ?"<C7 303"M&"07 <M< C1<"!; =H C&11&!&1/3< & M/31"/; P&"30. A Credibility9wise, weare inclined to believe the testimony of the poseur9buyer, Pat. 1izalito :rancisco. His testimony was corroborated on most materialpoints by P5Cpl. 1oland Mabbun who testified that, together with Pat. emesio ra and Pfc. 1oberto <ayag, he witnessed the illegaltransaction from a certain place near Pat. 1izalito :rancisco.

. "<.7 "<.7 /;"!"7 C/&3 P1?/"; &?1 3H P&0"3"? <C;/1/3"& &: ="3000. A 3he defense of alibi and frame9up isnot persuasive. 3he testimony of the lone witness Purificasion 0eminiano, mother of accused9appellant, does not inspire belief, themother instinct to protect a child being obvious. Her testimony was not buttressed by any other evidence. 3he defense theory bears the



badges of a concoction easy to formulate but hard to prove #People v. /curam '2* 0C1/ D2( G)**'$. Moreover, accused9appellantfailed to eplain the presence of the mar-s B1"%B and B1CMB #the initials of Pat. 1izalito :rancisco and Pat. 1oland Mabbun,respectively$ on the P2 bill. /s between the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statement of theaccused, the former deserves more credence #People v. <octolero, )*> 0C1/ +>' G)**)$.

. "<.7 "<.7 C1<"!";"38 &: ="30007 :"<"F0 &: 3H 31"/; C&E137 1E;. A =e recognize the rule that generally, whenan appeal hinges on the credibility of witnesses, the assessment by the trial court is accorded highest respect #Mendoza v. Court of /ppeals, )*@ 0C1/ >)' G)**)$.

+. "<.7 "<.7 "<.7 03/<0 " 3H /!0C &: ";;9M&3"? 3& :/;0;8 303":8 /F/"03 3H /CCE0<. A "n view of thepositive identification of accused9appellant by the prosecution witnesses, =e sustain the finding of the trial court that herein accused9appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. /bsent a showing that the law enforcers were moved by ill9motive or improper reason tofalsely impute a serious charge against the accused, it is presumed that they have acted in the regular performance of their duty.

< C " 0 " &

M;&, J p4

&n /ugust >), )*@*, accused9appellant /le6andro 0. sguerra was charged before the 1egional 3rial Court of the ational CapitalJudicial 1egion #!ranch )+*, Malabon$ in Criminal Case o. @)*(9M, for ?iolation of 0ection D, /rticle "" of 1epublic /ct +D', asamended, thusly4

3hat on or about /ugust '2, )*@*, in the Municipality of avotas, Metro Manila, and within the 6urisdiction of this Honorable Court, theabove9named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, deliver andgive away to another ten #)2$ tea9bags of dried mari6uana flowering tops, which are prohibited drugs, in violation of the above9cited law.

3he case for the prosecution, as summarized by the 0olicitor Feneral, is as follows4

3hree #>$ wee-s before /ugust '2, )*@*, Pfc. 1oberto <ayag, Pat. 1izalino :rancisco and Pat. emesio ra, all of the /nti9arcotics

Enit of the avotas Police 0tation, conducted a surveillance on appellant to confirm a confidential information that he was engaged inselling mari6uana at 1oldan 0treet, 3angos, avotas, Metro Manila #30, March +, )**2, pp. '9>$.

Having confirmed that appellant was a Bdrug pusher,B a buy9bust operation was hatched by Pfc. <ayag, Pat. :rancisco, Pat. ra andP5Cpl. 1olando Mabbun #30, March )>, )**2, pp. *9)2$.

&n /ugust '2, )*@*, at around '4>2 oKcloc- in the afternoon, Pat. <ayag, Pat. ra and P5Cpl. Mabbun hid themselves inside a sari9saristore five #$ to eight #@$ meters away from the corner of 1oldan 0treet, avotas, Metro Manila. 3hen, Pat. :rancisco, as poseur9buyer,approached appellant who was standing at the corner of 1oldan 0treet and told the latter that he #Pat. :rancisco$ wanted to buyBmari6uana.B /ppellant informed Pat. :rancisco that one #)$ tea bag of mari6uana cost 3en Pesos #P)2.22$ G30, March +, )**2, pp. >97 30, March )>, )**2, p. *.

Pat. :rancisco then handed to appellant a mar-ed :ifty Peso #P2.22$ bill #h. F$. "n turn, appellant gave Pat. :rancisco five #$ teabags of mari6uana #30, March +, )**2, p. $.

=hereupon, Pat. :rancisco disclosed himself to appellant as a police officer. /t this point, Pfc. <ayag, Pat. ra and P5Cpl. Mabbun

came out from the store and apprehended appellant. 3he latter voluntarily returned the P2.22 mar-ed money to Pat. :rancisco #30,Mar. +, )**2, p. $.

/ppellant was brought to the avotas Police 0tation for investigation. 3hereat, appellant surrendered another five #$ tea bags ofmari6uana #30, March )>, )**2, p. @$.

Epon the request of P5Cpl. Mabbun #1ec., ?ol. "", p. )$, the ational !ureau of "nvestigation conducted chemical, microscopic andchromatographic eaminations of the contents of the ten #)2$ tea bags forwarded to it for laboratory tests. 3he contents of the ten #)2$tea bags were found to be Bmari6uanaB #30, :eb. '(, )**2, pp. )9+7 hs. < O $. #pp. 9@, 1ollo$.

/t the trial, accused9appellant /le6andro sguerra proferred a different story and denied the buy9bust operation as narrated above."nterposing alibi as a defense, he testified that on the afternoon of /ugust '2, )*@*, he was in his parentsK house at o. D ;eongson0treet, 0an 1oque, avotas to as- for money from his mother, Purificasion 0eminiano, in order to buy mil- for his child. Epon receipt ofthe money, he boarded a tricycle and went to 3angos, avotas but he was not able to return to his house as he was apprehended byP5Cpl. 1oland Mabbun who informed him that a case was filed against him. ;ater on, he was incarcerated at the avotas Municipal Jailby Pfc 1oberto <ayag and P5Cpl. Mabbun. He denied the testimony of Pat. 1izalito :rancisco concerning the P2.22 ta-en from him,

saying that the same was given to him by his mother. &n cross9eamination, he admitted that he was arrested by P5Cpl. 1olandMabbun, Pfc 1oberto <ayag, and Pat. 1izalito :rancisco and that he was brought to the avotas Police 0tation after his arrest #p. )',1ollo$.

3o bolster the claim of accused9appellant that he has no -nowledge of the crime imputed against him, his mother, Purificasion0eminiano, testified that on /ugust '2, )*@* she was washing clothes in their house at ;eongson 0treet, 0an 1oque, avotas, thataccused9appellant was also there sleeping, that when accused9appellant wo-e up, he as-ed for money from her in order to buy mil- forhis child7 and that upon being given the money, accused9appellant left and boarded a tricycle to go to 3angos, avotas, Metro Manila#p. )>, 1ollo$.

:inding the case for the prosecution meritorious, the trial 6udge, the Honorable ufrocinio 0. dela Merced rendered a decision onovember , )**2, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows4

=H1:&1, the Court finds the accused /;J/<1& 0FE11/ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ?iolation of0ection D, /rticle "", 1./. +D' and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 1C;E0"& P1P3E/ and to pay a fine ofP'2,222.22 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with all the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the

costs.3he ten #)2$ tea bags of dried mari6uana flowering tops are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government, ordering the &fficer9"n9Charge of this Court to transmit the same to the <angerous <rugs !oard, Manila for proper disposition. #p. )D, 1ollo$.

<issatisfied, accused9appellant interposed the instant appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in giving more weight to the testimony ofthe witnesses for the prosecution and consequently further erred in finding him guilty of the crime charged.

/ccused9appellantKs defense is anchored on the circumstance that other mari6uana tea bags were recovered or ta-en from hispossession not at the time of this arrest, but when he was already at the police station. He reasons thus4 3he normal and standardprocedure followed by police officers in the arrest of offenders is to fris- and search the persons of the violators for weapons orevidence during or immediately after the arrest. /ssuming that there was a buy9bust operation and further assuming that he had the mari6uana tea bags sub6ect of the sale, then, accused9appellant continues, when he was arrested, and following the standardprocedure, he should have been fris-ed which would then have resulted in the discovery of the other mari6uana tea bags. /s those



other tea bags were discovered only at the police station, accused9appellant concludes #a$ there was no buy9bust operation and #b$the P2.22 and the )2 mari6uana tea bags are planted evidence.

/ccused9appellantKs manner of reaching his conclusions is flawed. / number of causes may eist why no immediate body search of asuspected offender is done in any particular arrest. 3he most obvious, we suspected is lac- of proper training on the part of thearresting officer or officers. "t could also happen that the arresting officers may conclude that the offender poses no danger and that itwould be best to defer to a later time a more thorough body search to be conducted in the presence of witnesses thus obviating anylater charge of evidence9planting. 3his was what probably happened in the instant case. /s the 0olicitor Feneral correctly points out,accused9appellant did not pose an imminent danger to the law enforcers because he was clearly outnumbered by the policemen. "t maynot be amiss then to conclude that there was no need to fris- accused9appellant for any hidden weapon or other evidence. =hat issignificant is that accused9appellant was caught red9handed in the act of selling the prohibited item. 3he prosecution has proven with

certainty all the elements necessary for a charge of illegal sale of mari6uana which are the identity of the buyer and the seller, theob6ect, and consideration, and #'$ the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor #People v. 1umeral, '22 0C1/ )*D G)**)$.0uffice it to say that there was no need for the policemen to concoct a story with regard to the other mari6uana tea bags recovered atthe police station.

/ccused9appellant further contends that because he and the poseur9buyer had not previously met, it would have been foolhardy for himto fearlessly enter into an illegal transaction with a complete stranger #p. >+, 1ollo$. 3he argument is baseless. "t is a well9settled rule inthis 6urisdiction that what matters is not the eisting familiarity between the buyer and the drug user, but rather the agreement and theacts constituting sale and delivery #People v. :ernandez, '2* 0C1/ ) G)**'7 People v. Mendoza, F.1. o. *'>@(, <ec. )@, )**'$. "nPeople v. 1umeral #'22 0C1/ )*D G)**)$, this Court held that drug pushers, especially small quantity or retail pushers sell theirprohibited wares to anyone who has the price for the drug, be they strangers or not.

Credibility9wise, we are inclined to believe the testimony of the poseur9buyer, Pat. 1izalito :rancisco. His testimony was corroboratedon most material points by P5Cpl. 1oland Mabbun who testified that, together with Pat. emesio ra and Pfc. 1oberto <ayag, hewitnessed the illegal transaction from a certain place near Pat. 1izalito :rancisco #p. )), 1ollo$.

&n the other hand, the defense of alibi and frame9up is not persuasive. 3he testimony of the lone witness Purificasion 0eminiano,mother of accused9appellant, does not inspire belief, the mother instinct to protect a child being obvious. Her testimony was notbuttressed by any other evidence. 3he defense theory bears the badges of a concoction easy to formulate but hard to prove #People v. /curam, '2* 0C1/ D2( G)**'$. Moreover, accused9appellant failed to eplain the presence of the mar-s B1"%B and B1CMB #the initialsof Pat. 1izalito :rancisco and Pat. 1oland Mabbun, respectively$ on the P2 bill #hs. F and F9', &riginal 1ecords$. /s between thepositive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statement of the accused, the former deserves more credence#People v. <octolero, )*> 0C1/ +>' G)**)$. =e recognize the rule that generally, when an appeal hinges on the credibility ofwitnesses, the assessment by the trial court is accorded highest respect #Mendoza v. Court of /ppeals, )*@ 0C1/ >)' G)**)$.

"n view of the positive identification of accused9appellant by the prosecution witnesses, =e sustain the finding of the trial court thatherein accused9appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. /bsent a showing that the law enforcers were moved by ill9motive orimproper reason to falsely impute a serious charge against the accused, it is presumed that they have acted in the regular performanceof their duty.

=H1:&1, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed with the slight modification as to the penalty which is understood to belife imprisonment in accordance with 1epublic /ct o. +D' as amended.

0& &1<1<.

Case )igest Peo<e 4s. "o Ho ?ing, /( SCRA &&

People v. ;o Ho =ing, )*> 0C1/ )'' :4 Peter ;o , together with co9accused ;im Cheng Huat alias /ntonio ;im and 1eynaldo 3ia,were charged with a violation of the <angerous <rugs /ct, for the transport of metamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise -nown asBshabuB. 3he drug was contained in tea bags inside tin cans which were placed inside their luggages. Epon arrival from Hong-ong, theyboarded the tais at the airport which were apprehended by C"0 operatives. 3heir luggages were subsequently searched where the teabags were opened and found to contain shabu. &nly ;o and ;im were convicted. 3ia was discharged as a state witness, who turned outto be a B deep penetration agentB of the C"0 in its mission to bust the drug syndicate . "ssue4 =5 the search and seizure was legal.H;<4 80 3hat search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. &ne of the eceptions thereto is asearch of a moving vehicle. 3he circumstance of the case clearly show that the serach in question was made as regards a movingvehicle.

3herefore, a valid warrant was not necessary to effect the search on appellant and his co9accused. "t was firmly established from thefactual findings of the court that the authorities had reasonable ground to believe that appellant would attempt to bring in contrabandand transport within the country. 3he belief was based on intelligence reports gathered from surveillance activities on the suspectedsyndicate, of which appellant was touted to be amember. /side from this, they were also certain as to the epected date and time ofarrival of the accused from China via Hong-ong. !ut such -nowledge was insufficient to enable them to fulfill the requiremnents for theissuance of a search warrant. 0till and all, the important thing is that there was probable cause to conduct the warrantless search,which must still be present in the case.

Peo<e 4s. Ma+stedt, $.R. No. /-0, June /, //#1ead also4 dissents of arvasa O Cruz, JJ.$=ith substantial dissenting opinions of Justices arvasa #CJ$ and Cruz

:acts4 Epon reports that vehicles coming from 0agada are transporting mari6uana and other prohibited drugs, the :irst regional

/1C&M was ordered to set9up a temporary chec-point area to monitor all vehicle coming from 0agada.

3he accused, Mi-ael Malmstedt, a 0wedish national was boarding in the rear end of the bus when the officers are inspecting.

&ne officer saw a bulging ob6ect in the waist of the accused and as-ed Malmstedt to show his passport and other identification

documents. 3he accused failed to comply and was as-ed to bring out whatever the ob6ect bulging in his stomach. "t turns out to be

haishish a derivative of mari6uana.



3he accused was invited to step out of the bus for questioning. !efore doing so, the accused first get his two traveling bags

from the luggage carrier of the bus. 3he officers inspected the bags and saw a suspicious teddy bear, which turned out to be

containing the same materials confiscated from the accused.

3he 13C of ;a 3rinidad !enguet later convicted the accused with the violation of 1/ +D'. hence this petition for reversal.

3he accused contended that his arrest and seizure of his personal effects are illegal there being conducted without warrant,

therefore follows that articles confiscated is inadmissible evidence against him.

"ssue4 =ere the arrest, search and seizure illegal

Held4 o. "t is legal, being one of the instances provided by statutory provision that warrantless arrest and seizure can be effected. "t

was search pursuant to a lawful arrest and search in a moving vehicle.

/ccused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs #hashish$. / crime was actually being committed by

the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. 3hus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph #)$

of the foregoing provisions of law #committed a crime$, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.

ote4 <issenting &pinions of Justices arvasa and Cruz

Justi*e Nar4asa@

"f, on the other, a person is searched without a warrant, or under circumstances other than those 6ustifying an arrest without

warrant in accordance with law, supra, merely on suspicion that he is engaged in some felonious enterprise, and in order to discover if

he has indeed committed a crime, it is not only the arrest which is illegal but also, the search on the occasion thereof, as being Bthe fruit

of the poisonous tree.B "n that event, any evidence ta-en, even if confirmatory of the initial suspicion, is inadmissible Bfor any purpose in

any proceeding.B 3hey are merely fishing for evidence to corroborate their speculations.

3he search was not made by virtue of a warrant or as an incident of a lawful warrantless arrest, i.e., under circumstances sufficient to

engender a reasonable belief that some crime was being or about to be committed, or had 6ust been committed. 3here was no

intelligent and intentional waiver of the right against unreasonable searches and seizure.

3he search was therefore illegal, since the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest of an individual before a search of his body and

his belongings may licitly be made. 3he process cannot be reversed, i.e., a search be first underta-en, and then an arrest effected, on

the strength of the evidence yielded by the search. /n arrest made in that case would be unlawful, and the search underta-en as an

incident of such an unlawful arrest, also unlawful.

0earch may etend to the area Bwithin his immediate control, defined4

3he area from which said person arrested might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.

Pa<a 4s. Mago:acts4

Petitioner Martin /lagao, head of the counter9intelligence unit of the Manila Police <epartment, acting upon a reliable information received onovember >, )*++ to the effect that a certain shipment of personal effects, allegedly misdeclared and undervalued, would be released the following dayfrom the customs zone of the port of Manila and loaded on two truc-s, and upon orders of petitioner 1icardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a dulydeputized agent of the !ureau of Customs, conducted surveillance at gate o. ) of the customs zone.

=hen the truc-s left gate o. ) at about D4>2 in the afternoon of ovember D, )*++, elements of the counter9intelligence unit went after thetruc-s and intercepted them at the /grifina Circle, rmita, Manila. 3he load of the two truc-s, consisting of nine bales of goods, and the two truc-s, wereseized on instructions of the Chief of Police. Epon investigation, a person claimed ownership of the goods and showed to the policemen a B0tatementand 1eceipts of <uties Collected on "nformal ntry o. )D(92)B, issued by the !ureau of Customs in the name of a certain !ienvenido aguit.

3he respondent Mago, filed a petition for mandamus and certiorari before the C:" Manila contending that the search and seizure is illegal forlac- of a valid warrant. Moreover, she also contends that such articles sought from her is not included by the law for prohibited importation and that it nolonger under the control of the 3ariff and Customs code for it #articles$ were already sold to the petitioner.

0he also contends that the search seizure conducted by the respondents are illegally being made outside the 6urisdiction of the !&C and thatthe subsequent search warrant issued by the collector of customs is not valid being not issued by a 6udge.

3he respondent Mago filed an e9parte motion to release the confiscated articles upon her posting a bond. 3his motion was then granted bythe respondent Judge Jarencio.

"ssue4 =as the seizure of the goods unlawful /nd that the !&C has no 6urisdiction over the articles sought

Held4 o. it is a valid seizure.3he Chief of the Manila Police <epartment, 1icardo F. Papa, having been deputized in writing by the Commissioner of Customs, could, for thepurposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, effect searches, seizures, and arrests, and it was his duty to ma-e seizure, among others,of any cargo, articles or other movable property when the same may be sub6ect to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws.He could lawfully open and eamine any bo, trun-, envelope or other container wherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspect thepresence therein of dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law7 and li-ewise to stop, search and eamine any vehicle, beast orperson reasonably suspected of holding or conveying such article as aforesaid. "t cannot be doubted, therefore, that petitioner 1icardo F. Papa, Chief ofPolice of Manila, could lawfully effect the search and seizure of the goods in question. 3he 3ariff and Customs Code authorizes him to demandassistance of any police officer to effect said search and seizure, and the latter has the legal duty to render said assistance. 3his was what happenedprecisely in the case of ;t. Martin /lagao who, with his unit, made the search and seizure of the two truc-s loaded with the nine bales of goods inquestion at the /grifina Circle. He was given authority by the Chief of Police to ma-e the interception of the cargo.

Petitioner Martin /lagao and his companion policemen had authority to effect the seizure without any search warrant issued by a competentcourt.



3he 3ariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant in the instant case. 3he Code authorizes persons having police authority under0ection ''2> of the 3ariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwellinghouse7 and also to inspect, search and eamine any vessel or aircraft and any trun-, pac-age, bo or envelope or any person on board, or stop andsearch and eamine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippinescontrary to law, without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases.

"t is our considered view, therefore, that ecept in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons eercising police authority under thecustoms law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws.

Note@ 3he !ureau of Customs has the duties, powers and 6urisdiction, among others, 57 to assess and collect all lawful revenues from imported articles,and all other dues, fees, charges, fines and penalties, accruing under the tariff and customs laws7 5&7 to prevent and suppress smuggling and otherfrauds upon the customs7 and 5(7 to enforce tariff and customs laws.

3he goods in question were imported from Hong-ong, as shown in the B0tatement and 1eceipts of <uties Collected on "nformal ntry.B /s long as theimportation has not been terminated the imported goods remain under the 6urisdiction of the !ureau of Customs.

I+<ortation is deemed terminated only upon the payment of the duties, taes and other charges upon the articles, or secured to be paid, atthe port of entry and the legal permit for withdrawal shall have been granted.

3he payment of the duties, taes, fees and other charges must be in full.

PEOP"E 4s. I)E" AMINNU)IN:/C304"del /minnudin was arrested on June ', )*@D, shortly after disembar-ing from the M5? =ilcon * at about @4>2 in the evening, in "loilo City. 3he PCofficers who were in fact waiting for him simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what loo-ed li-ed mari6uana leaves too- him to theirheadquarters for investigation. 3he two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later ta-en to the !" laboratory for eamination.

=hen they were verified as mari6uana leaves, an information for violation of the <angerous <rugs /ct was filed against him. /ccording to the prosecution, the PC officers had earlier received a t ip from one of their informers that the accused9appellant was on board a vesselbound for "loilo City and was carrying mari6uana. He was "dentified by name. /cting on this tip, they waited for him in the evening of June ', )*@D, andapproached him as he descended from the gangplan- after the informer had pointed to him. 3hey detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying."t was found to contain three -ilos of what were later analyzed as mari6uana leaves by an !" forensic eaminer, who testified that she conductedmicroscopic, chemical and chromatographic tests on them. &n the basis of this finding, the corresponding charge was then filed against /minnudin.

"t is not disputed, and in fact it is admitted by the PC officers who testified for the prosecution, that they had no warrant when they arrested /minnudinand seized the bag he was carrying. 3heir only 6ustification was the tip they had earlier received from a reliable and regular informer who reported tothem that /minnudin was arriving in "loilo by boat with mari6uana. 3heir testimony varies as to the time they received the tip, one saying it was two daysbefore the arrest, another two wee-s and a third Bwee-s before June '.B

"00E4=hether or not there was a valid warrantless arrest.

1E;"F4

"n the case at bar, the accused9appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that hehad 6ust done so. =hat he was doing was descending the gangplan- of the M5? =ilcon * and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest.3o all appearances, he was li-e any of the other passengers innocently disembar-ing from the vessel. "t was only when the informer pointed to him asthe carrier of the mari6uana that he suddenly became suspect and so sub6ect to apprehension. "t was the furtive finger that triggered his arrest. 3he"dentification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers #and not a 6udge$ that authorized them to pounce upon /minnudinand immediately arrest him.

ow that we have succeeded in restoring democracy in our country after fourteen years of the despised dictatorship, when any one could be pic-ed upat will, detained without charges and punished without trial, we will have only ourselves to blame if that -ind of arbitrariness is allowed to return, to oncemore flaunt its disdain of the Constitution and the individual liberties its !ill of 1ights guarantees.

=hile this is not to say that the accused9appellant is innocent, for indeed his very own words suggest that he is lying, that fact alone does not 6ustify afinding that he is guilty. 3he constitutional presumption is that he is innocent, and he will be so declared even if his defense is wea- as long as theprosecution is not strong enough to convict him.

=ithout the evidence of the mari6uana allegedly seized from /minnudin, the case of the prosecution must fall. 3hat evidence cannot be admitted, andshould never have been considered by the trial court for the simple fact is that the mari6uana was seized illegally. "t is the fruit of the poisonous tree, to

use Justice HolmesK felicitous phrase. 3he search was not an incident of a lawful arrest because there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantlessarrest did not come under the eceptions allowed by the 1ules of Court. Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the evidence obtainedthereby was inadmissible.

Peo<e 4s. Tangien, $.R. No. "%2(2(- A<ri 2, //-

6a*ts@ Patrolmen 0ilverio and 1omeo Punzalan were conducting surveillance at the 0an :ernando ?ictory ;iner 3erminal. /t around*4>2pm they noticed a person, Medel 3angliben, carrying a traveling bag who acted suspiciously. 3hey confronted him, inspected hisbag, and there they found mari6uana leaves. 3he accused was then ta-en to the Police Headquarters for further investigations. 3he 3Cfound 3angliben guilty of violating sec.D art. ' of the 1/ +D' or the <angerous <rugs /ct of )*('.

Issue@ =hether or ot there was an unlawful search due to lac- of search warrant.

Hed@ o. 1ule ))> sec. provides the a peace officer or a private person may w5o a warrant arrest a person when in his presence the

person to be arrested has committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

"n the present case, the accused was found to have been committing possession of mari6uana and can be therefore searched lawfullyeven without a search warrant. /nother reason is that this case poses urgency on the part of the arresting police officers. "t was foundout that an informer pointed to the accused telling the policemen that the accused was carrying mari6uana. 3he police officers had to act

Documents

List of Crim Pro Cases - Searches and Seizures Remedial Law