SUBJECT:

Crim 2

TOPIC:
Search warrants
maliciously obtained
and abuse in the
service of those
illegally obtained

Date Made:
January 27, 2016

Digest Maker:
eamtrinidad

CASE NAME: Burgos vs. Chief of Staff (JOSE BURGOS, SR., JOSE BURGOS, JR., BAYANI SORIANO
and J. BURGOS MEDIA SERVICES, INC., vs. THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES,
THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY
COMMAND, THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, ET AL.)

PONENTE: Escolin, J.
Case Date: December 26, 1984
Case Summary:
Petitioners assail the validity of two search warrants filed against them for the
premises of Metropolitan Mail and We Forum newspapers in Quezon City as
well as the seizure of printing equipment, documents, motor vehicles, documents,
books, etc used in the newspaper publication. The newspapers and items were
alleged to have been used in subversive activities.
The Court held that the two search warrants were null and void. Probable cause for
a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that
the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be
searched. The Court ruled that the affidavits submitted for the application of the
warrant did not satisfy the requirement of probable cause, the statements of
the witnesses having been mere generalizations.
Rule of Law:
Section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution: ... and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such
other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Art. 129, RPC: Search warrants maliciously obtained, and abuse in the service of those
legally obtained. In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission
of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without
just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use
unnecessary severity in executing the same.
Detailed Facts:
Judge Cruz-Pano issued search warrants for the offices of Metropolitan Mail and
We Forum, during which printing equipment, motor vehicles, documents, books,
etc possessed by Burgos Jr., the publisher-editor, because these were alleged to be
used in subversive activities.
Respondents said that the case should be dismissed because petitioners should
have sought the quashal of the warrant from Cruz-Pano itself. The SC said that yes
there was a procedural flaw but they still take cognizance of the case because of
the urgency of the constitutional issues as well as how We Forum garnered public
BLOCK D 2019 1

interest because it was shown on Channel 7.

Respondents also said that it should be dismissed on the ground of laches
(negligence for a long amount of time, doing something that could have been
done earlier) because petitioners only filed the case 6 months after the event.
Dec 1982-June1983. Petitioners said this was because they exhausted other
remedies, i.e. writing a letter to Pres Marcos. When nothing turned up they went to
Court. SC said ok

Issue:
(S) W/N the search warrants could be deemed invalid when it only specified one address
but searched two places - NO
(S) W/N the affidavits of witnesses Gutierrez and Tango (Metrocom Intelligence and
Security Group who did surveillance) provided sufficient basis for probable cause? NO
Holding:
1. NO.
2. NO. Not sufficient basis because too general. The application and/or 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.
3. Abadillas statement: "is in possession or has in his control printing equipment and
other paraphernalia, news publications and other documents which were used and
are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of
subversion punishable under Presidential Decree 885, as amended ..."
4. Gutierrez and Tangos affidavits: "that the evidence gathered and collated by our
unit clearly shows that the premises above- mentioned and the articles and things
above-described were used and are continuously being used for subversive
activities in conspiracy with, and to promote the objective of, illegal organizations
such as the Light-a-Fire Movement, Movement for Free Philippines, and April 6
Movement."
VOID BECAUSE WARRANTS TOO GENERAL. 1] All printing equipment, paraphernalia,
paper, ink, photo (equipment, typewriters, cabinets, tables, communications/recording
equipment, tape recorders, dictaphone and the like used and/or connected in the
printing of the "WE FORUM" newspaper and any and all documents communication,
letters and facsimile of prints related to the "WE FORUM" newspaper.
2] Subversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, and other publication to promote
the objectives and piurposes of the subversive organization known as Movement for Free
Philippines, Light-a-Fire Movement and April 6 Movement; and,
3] Motor vehicles used in the distribution/circulation of the "WE FORUM" and other
subversive materials and propaganda, more particularly,
1] Toyota-Corolla, colored yellow with Plate No. NKA 892;
2] DATSUN pick-up colored white with Plate No. NKV 969
3] A delivery truck with Plate No. NBS 524;

BLOCK D 2019 2

4] TOYOTA-TAMARAW, colored white with Plate No. PBP 665; and,

5] TOYOTA Hi-Lux, pick-up truck with Plate No. NGV 427 with marking
"Bagong Silang."
5. Jurisprudence tells of the prohibition on the issuance of general warrants.
(Stanford vs. State of Texas). The description and enumeration in the warrant of
the items to be searched and seized did not indicate with specification the
subversive nature of the said items.
Ruling:
Search warrants declared null and void.
Prayer for writ of mandatory injuction GRANTED, all articles seized must be
returned to petitioners

BLOCK D 2019 3