CL2HR CASES – SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

FAST FACTS DOCTRINE

1. PEOPLE V. MARTI (1991) – PARCELS WITH MARIJUANA INSIDE OPENED BY PRIVATE PERSON

Issue: May an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of NO, IT IS ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; CRIME CHARGED IS AFFIRMED
appellant’s constitutional rights, be invoked against the State?
First, records of the case clearly indicate that it was Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor
Andre Marti and wife went to Manila Packaging and Export of the forwarding agency, who made search/inspection of the packages. Said
Forewarders to deliver 4 gift-wrapped packages to a friend in inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure as a precautionary
Switzerland. Before delivery to the Bureau of Customs and/or measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of
Post, Job Reyes (proprietor) opened the box for final inspection. Posts. Second, the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the
He felt dried leaves. He reported it to NBI and requested a lab reasonable search effected by Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure
examination. NBI went to his place of business. Reyes opened proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain
the parcels. They were found to be bricks of dried marijuana. sight is not a search. Having observed that which is open, where no trespass has
Thus, an Information was filed against Marti and convicted for been committed in aid thereof, is not search.
violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. He appealed to the SC,
stating that the Special Criminal Court (RTC Manila) erred in The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. It
admitting evidence illegally searched and seized. governs the relationship between the individual and the state. What the Bill of
Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible
to any power holder. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the
restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.

2. STONEHILL V. DIOKNO (1967) – 42 SEARCH WARRANTS FOR PETITIONERS AND OFFICES OF THEIR CORPS.

Petitioner: Harry Stonehill; Robert and John Brooks; Karl Beck 1. NO, PETITIONERS HAVE NO CAUSE OF ACTION

Respondent: Sec. Jose Diokno (DOJ); Jose Lukban – Acting Corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the
Director of NBI; Special Prosecutors; Judges personality of herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of
the interest of each of them in said corporations, and whatever the offices they hold
Issue: (1) WON petitioners may invoke constitutional guaranty therein may be. It is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested
on the warrants issued for the corps. only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the
(2) WON warrants for petitioners’ residences are valid objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot
(3) If not, WON may be used in evidence against them be availed of by third parties. The right to object to the admission of said papers
in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects
Respondent prosecutors and judges issued, on diff. dates, 42 belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against
search warrants against petitioners and/or corporations of them in their individual capacity.
which they were officers, directed to any peace officer, to
search the persons above-named and/or premises of their 2. NO, REQUIREMENTS FOR VALID WARRANT WEREN’T COMPLIED WITH
offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take
possession of personal property as “subject of offense; stolen No specific offense had been alleged in said applications – averments were
or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of offense”, or “used or abstract. It was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found
intended to be used as means of committing offense” for the existence of probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of
“violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular
Internal Revenue Code and RPC.” Petitioners assails that the acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal
search warrants are null and void, as contravening the laws. The warrants involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed
Constitution and Rules of Court, because: by herein petitioners. It would be a legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict
anybody of a those laid out in the warrant without reference to any determinate
(1) they do not describe with particularity things to be seized; provision of said laws or codes. Also, the warrants authorized the search for and
(2) money, not mentioned in warrants, were actually seized; seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners herein,
(3) warrants were issued to fish evidence in deportation cases regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal, thus openly
filed against them; contravening the explicit command of our Bill of Rights — that the things to be
(4) searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner; seized be particularly described — as well as tending to defeat its major objective:
(5) the documents, papers and cash money seized were not the elimination of general warrants.
delivered to the courts that issued the warrants, to be
disposed of in accordance with law To uphold the validity of the warrants in question would be to wipe out completely
one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it would
Property: books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.
journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers This is precisely the evil sought to be remedied by the constitutional provision — to
showing all business transactions including disbursements outlaw the so-called general warrants.
receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and
Bobbins (cigarette wrappers) – CATEGORIZED INTO 2 groups: 3. NO, EVIDENCE EXCLUDED AND MONCADO DOCTRINE ABANDONED
(1) those found in the offices of the corps; (2) found in the
residences of petitioners Exclusion is the only practical way of enforcing the constitutional privilege. The
efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment,
NOTE: Moncado doctrine – criminal should not be allowed to praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great
go free merely “because the constable has blundered” principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in
their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land. To hold otherwise is to grant
the right but in reality to withhold its privilege and enjoinment.

MBL_1B_SBU_COL_2018-2019
 3. MANTARING V. JUDGE ROMAN (1996) – FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION FOUND IN PETITIONER’S HOUSE

Petitioner: Leovigildo Mantaring MOLATO REPRIMANDED AND WARNED

Respondent: Judge Manuel Roman (RTC Oriental Mindoro); It was improper for respondent judge to have issued the warrants of arrest against
Judge Ireneo Molato (MTC Oriental Mindoro) complainant and his son without any finding that it was necessary to place them in
immediate custody in order to prevent a frustration of justice. It is now settled that
Issue: procedure of examination of judge in issuing warrants of arrest in preliminary investigations, the investigating judge
must:
This is a supplemental complaint of Mantaring against Judge
Molato, charging him with harassment. The latter issued a (a) have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his
search warrant which resulted in the seizure from a certain Joel witnesses by searching questions and answers;
Gamo of a home-made gun, a hand grenade, 5 live (b) be satisfied that probable cause exists; and
ammunitions for Cal. 38 and 3 live ammunitions for 12 gauge (c) that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in
shotgun. A complaint for Illegal Possession of Firearms and order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
Ammunition was filed against him, which included Mantaring
and son. It was alleged that the house in which the objects had In this case, Molato ordered the issuance of warrant of arrest solely on his finding
been found were owned by petitioner, thus, Molato concluded of probable cause, totally omitting to consider the third requirement.
that there was probable cause to believe that they were guilty
and ordered their arrest. Note: The issuance of a search warrant and of a warrant of arrest requires the
showing of probabilities as to different facts. In the case of search warrants, the
Mantaring contends that as the search warrant was issued only determination is based on the finding that (1) the articles to be seized are
against Gamo and his son, it was wrong for Molato to find connected to a criminal activity and (2) they are found in the place to be searched.
probable cause against him on the theory that, as owners of the It is not necessary that a particular person be implicated. On the other hand, in
house, they had constructive possession of the same. arrest cases, the determination of probable cause is based on a finding that a crime
has been committed and that the person to be arrested has committed it.

4. SOLIVEN V. MAKASIAR (1988) – “PERSONALLY”

Petitioner: Luis Beltran NO, WARRANT FOR ARREST IS VALID

Respondent: Judge Ramon Makasiar (RTC Manila) What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of
the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying
Issue: WON constitutional rights were violated when himself of the existence of probably cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest,
respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for arrest without the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.
personally examining the complainant and witnesses, if any, to
determine probable cause Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall (1) personally evaluate the
report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the
Beltran, of the petitioners, calls for an interpretation of the existence of probably cause and on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest, or
constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest. (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s
The addition of the word "personally" after the word report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him
"determined" and the deletion of the grant of authority by the in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
1973 Constitution to issue warrants to "other responsible
officers as may be authorized by law", convinced him that the Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would be unduly laden with
Constitution now requires the judge to personally examine the the investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and
complainant and his witnesses determination of probable cause deciding cases filed before their courts.
for the issuance of warrants of arrest.

5. SILVA V. PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC, NEGROS ORIENTAL (1991) – SEARCH WARRANT VIA YES-NO DEPOSITION

Petitioner: Nicomedes Silva; Marlon Silva; Antonieta Silva NO, INVALID SEARCH WARRANT; RETURN PHP 1,231.40

Respondent: Judge of RTC Negros Oriental, Dumaguete (Ontal Ontal failed to comply with the legal requirement that he must examine the
and Cruz) applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers in
order to determine the existence of probable cause. The joint "Deposition of
Issue: WON search warrant was valid Witness", which was submitted together with the "Application for Search Warrant"
contained, for the most part, suggestive questions answerable by merely placing
Chief of PC Narcom Detachment filed an “Application for "yes" or "no" in the blanks provided thereon. The deposition did not only contain
Search Warrant” against Nicomedes and Marlon, accompanied leading questions but it was also very broad. The questions propounded to the
by a “Deposition of Witness” executed by Pfc. Alcoran and Pat. witnesses were in fact, not probing but were merely routinary. The deposition was
Quindo. Judge Ontal issued such for violation of the Dangerous already mimeographed and all that the witnesses had to do was fill in their answers
Drugs Act. In the course of the search, the serving officers also on the blanks provided. Also, the officers implementing the search warrant clearly
seized money belonging to Antonieta. The latter filed a motion abused their authority when they seized the money of Antoneita.
to return such on the grounds that the search warrant only
authorized the serving officers to seize marijuana dried leaves, Thus, in issuing a search warrant, the judge must strictly comply with the
cigarettes, and joint, and that they failed or refused to make a constitutional and statutory requirement that he must determine the existence of
return. Ontal held in abeyance the pending the filing of probable cause by personally examining the applicant and his witnesses in the
appropriate charges. Petitioners filed a motion to quash the form of searching questions and answers.
search warrant because (1) it was issued on the sole basis of
the “application” and “deposition” which were accomplished by Note: Purpose of provision is to prevent violations of private security in person and
merely filing blanks and (2) judge failed to personally examine property, and unlawful invasion of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law
the complainant and witnesses. Cruz (new judge) denied acting under legislative or judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such
motion. They motioned for reco, but was also denied. usurpations when attempted.

MBL_1B_SBU_COL_2018-2019
 6. MORANO V. VIVO (1967) – DEPORTATION CASE OF 2 CHINESE CITIZENS

Petitioner: Esteban Morano; Chan Sau Wah; Fu Yan Fun YES, NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROSCRIBED

Respondent: Martiniano Vivo – Acting Comm., Immigration Section 1 (3), Article III of the Constitution does not require judicial intervention in
the execution of a final order of deportation issued in accordance with law. The
Issue: constitutionality of Sec. 37(a) of Immigration Act constitutional limitation contemplates an order of arrest in the exercise of judicial
power as a step preliminary or incidental to prosecution or proceedings for a given
Wah (Chinese) and her minor son Fun were permitted entry into offense or administrative action, not as a measure indispensable to carry out a
the PH under a temporary visitor’s visa for 2 months and after valid decision by a competent official, such as a legal order of deportation, issued
they posted a cash bond (PHP 4K). Wah married Esteban. To by the Commission of Immigration, in pursuance of a valid legislation.
prolong their stay, Wah and Fun obtained several extensions.
Before their last one expires, Vivo ordered them to leave the The constitutional guarantee set forth in Section 3, Article III of the Constitution
country with a warning that upon failure to do so, he will issue a aforesaid requiring that the issue of probable cause be determined by a judge,
warrant for their arrest and will cause the confiscation of the does not extend to deportation proceedings.
bond. Instead of leaving the country, petitioners filed with CFI
Manila to compel Vivo to cancel their Alien Certificates of The power to deport or expel aliens is an attribute of sovereignty. Such power is
Registration and stop him from issuing warrants of arrest planted on the "accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation
pending resolution of this case. Trial court issued a write of has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to
preliminary injunction with a bond. After trial and stipulations, forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions." So it is, that this Court once
CFI ruled that Wah is a PH citizen, restrained Vivo from aptly remarked that there can be no controversy on the fact that where aliens are
arresting or deporting them, and forfeit the bond. Petitioners admitted as temporary visitors, "the law is to the effect that temporary visitors who
and Vivo appealed. do not depart upon the expiration of the period of stay granted them are subject to
deportation by the Commissioner of Immigration, for having violated the limitation
Sec. 37(a) – grants power to Commissioner of Immigration to or condition under which they were admitted as non-immigrants (Immigration Law,
arrest and deport aliens Sec. 37(a), subsection (7) C.A. 613, as amended)"

7. HARVEY V. SANTIAGO (1980) – ALIEN PEDOPHILES YUCK

Petitioner: Andrew Harvey (US); John Sherman (US); Adriaan YES, WARRANTS ISSUED BY COMMISSIONER IS VALID
Van Del Elshout (Dutch)
The deportation charges instituted by respondent Commissioner are in accordance
Respondent: Miriam Defensor-Santiago – Commissioner on with Section 37(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, in relation to Section
Immigration and Deportation (CID) 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. Section 37(a) is not constitutionally
proscribed. Deportation proceedings are administrative in character. An order of
Issue: WON warrants issued by respondent is valid deportation is never construed as a punishment. It is preventive, not a penal
process. It need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary Court
Petitioners, who were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles proceedings.
after 3 months of close surveillance, were apprehended from
their respective residences by CID agents by virtue of Mission The ruling in Vivo vs. Montesa that "the issuance of warrants of arrest by the
Orders issued by respondent and detained at the CID Detention Commissioner of Immigration, solely for purposes of investigation and before a
Center. Seized during the apprehension were rolls of photo final order of deportation is issued, conflicts with paragraph 3, Section 1 of Article
negatives and photos of suspected child prostitutes, as well as III of the Constitution" (referring to the 1935 Constitution) is not invocable herein.
boys and girls engaged in the sex act. There were also posters Respondent Commissioner's Warrant of Arrest did not order petitioners to appear
and other literature advertising the child prostitutes. and show cause why they should not be deported. They were issued specifically
"for violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of
Petitioners question the validity of their detention and assails the Revised Administrative Code." Before that, deportation proceedings had been
that there is no provision in the Immigration Act nor Revised commenced against them as undesirable aliens and the arrest was a step
Admin Code which legally clothes the Commissioner with any preliminary to their possible deportation.
authority to arrest and detain petitioners and that CID agents
were not clothed w/ valid warrants of arrest, search and seizure. Also, at any rate, the filing by petitioners of a petition to be released on bail should
be considered as a waiver of any irregularity attending their arrest and estops them
Note: This is a petition for habeas corpus. from questioning its validity.

8. PEOPLE V. VELOSO (1925) – RAID OF PARLIAMENTARY CLUB

Issue: legality of a John Doe search warrant YES, SEARCH WARRANT VALID

A raid was conducted in the Parliamentary Club where nearly The affidavit for the search warrant and the search warrant itself described the
50 persons, including Veloso, were apprehended backed up by building to be searched as "the building No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila,
a John Doe warrant. Veloso said he wasn’t John Doe. Philippine Islands." It is the prevailing rule that a description of a place to be
Townsend said he was considered as such. As Veloso’s pocket searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
was building as if it contained gambling utensils, he was ascertain and identify the place intended.
required to show evidence of the game. He refused to submit to
the search, so he was dealt with by the police. The police officers were accordingly authorized to break down the door and enter
the premises of the building occupied by the so-called Parliamentary Club. When
Respondent, is appealing from a judgment of CFI Manila finding inside, they then had the right to arrest the persons presumably engaged in a
him guilty of the crime of resistance of the agents of the prohibited game, and to confiscate the evidence of the commission of the crime. It
authority, in violation of Art. 252, RPC. has been held that an officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested
any money or property found upon his person, which was used in the commission
of the crime or was the fruit of the crime, or which may furnish the person arrested
with the means of committing violence or of escaping, or which may be used as
evidence on the trial of the cause, but not otherwise

MBL_1B_SBU_COL_2018-2019
 9. SALAZAR V. ACHACOSO (1990) – CLOSURE AND SEIZURE ORDER BY POEA ADMINISTRATOR

Petitioner: Hortencia Salazar UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THEREFORE ASSAILED ORDER IS VOID

Respondent: Tomas Achacoso – POEA Administrator; Ferdie Under Article III, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution, it is only judges, and no other,
Marquez (POEA, Anti-Illegal Recruitment Unit) who may issue warrants of arrest and search. Neither may it be done by a mere
prosecuting body. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process. The
Issue: May POEA Administration (or Labor Sec.) validly issue exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the
warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Art. 38 of Labor President or the Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested, following a final
Code? order of deportation, for the purpose of deportation.

Rosalie Tesoro filed with POEA a complaint against Salazar,
his manager (latter refuses to give back her PECC card).
Achacoso issued Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 against
Salazar having ascertained that he had no license to operate a
recruitment agency. Salazar filed with POEA a letter requesting
that personal properties at her residence be immediately
returned on the ground that said seizure was contrary to law.
Before POEA could answer, petitioner filed tis petition.
Moreover, the search and seizure order in question, assuming, ex gratia
argumenti, that it was validly issued, is clearly in the nature of a general warrant (it
was stated in the assailed order that those being seized were “documents and
paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal
recruitment”). A warrant must identify clearly the things to be seized, otherwise, it
is null and voic.

10. ALVAREZ V. CFI (1937) – WARRANT ISSUED BECAUSE OF “RELIABLE INFORMATION”

Petitioner: Narciso Alvarez NO, SEARCH WARRANT INVALID; IMMEDIATE RETURN OF DOCS.

Respondent: CFI of Tayabas; Anti-Usury Board Breakdown of grounds, and why they are illegal (except letter D hehe)

Issue: validity of search warrant
The chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board (DOJ)
presented to Judge David (CFI Tayabas) an affidavit alleging
that according to reliable information, Alvarez kept in his house
books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used
by him in connection with his activities as a money-lender,
charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the law. In his
oath at the end of the affidavit, he stated that his answers to the
questions were correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Upon such, the judge issued the warrant, ordering the search
of petitioner’s house at any time of the day or night, the seizure
of the above mentioned and immediate delivery of such. Agents
executed the search and seizure.
The petitioner assails the search warrant on the ff grounds:
a) It has been based upon the affidavit of agent Almeda
whose oath he declared that he had no personal
knowledge of the facts, but only mere information
secured from a person whom he considered reliable
b) It is not supported by other affidavits aside from that
made by applicant
c) It authorized its execution at night
d) It lacked adequate description of the books and
documents to be seized
e) Articles were seized in order that the Anti-Usury Board
might provide itself with evidence to be used in the case
fight against him for violation of Usury Law
a.) It is required that there be not only probable cause before the issuance of a
search warrant but that the search warrant must be based upon an
application supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses he may
produce. An oath includes any form of attestation by which a party signifies
that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully. The
oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge
of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince
the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking
the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause. The true test
of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is
whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged
thereon and affiant be held liable for damages caused.
b.) Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent in this case was insufficient because
his knowledge of the facts was not personal but merely hearsay, it is the duty
of the judge to require the affidavit of one or more witnesses for the purpose
of determining the existence of probable cause to warrant the issuance of the
search warrant. When the affidavit of the applicant or complainant contains
sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge, it is sufficient if the
judge is satisfied that there exists probable cause; when the applicant's
knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay, the affidavit of one or more witnesses
having a personal knowledge of the facts is necessary.
c.) Section 101 of General Orders, No. 58 authorizes that the search be made
at night when it is positively asserted in the affidavit that the property is on
the person or in the place ordered to be searched. Therefore, the search done
in this case could not legally be made at night.
d.) SC ruled that the description of the articles was adequate enough. Where, by
the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general,
it is not required that a technical description be given, as this would mean that
no warrant could issue.

e.) As petitioner had said, such had appear so. The seizure of books and
documents by means of a search warrant, for the purpose of using them as
evidence in a criminal case against the person in whose possession they
were found, is unconstitutional because it makes the warrant unreasonable,
and it is equivalent to a violation of the constitutional provision prohibiting the
compulsion of an accused to testify against himself

Note: What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure in any

particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of
the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search, the presence or
absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was
made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured

MBL_1B_SBU_COL_2018-2019
 11. MATA V. BAYONA (1984) – JAI ALAI GAME

Petitioner: Soriano Mata NO, SEARCH WARRANT INVALID; RETURN NOT ORDERED

Respondent: Judge Josephine Bayona (City Court of Ormoc); Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are not sufficient. The
Bernardo Goles; Reynaldo Mayote examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce and to attach them to the record. Such written
Issue: validity of warrant issued by respondent judge deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine
the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the
An information was filed against Mata alleging that he offered, person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false. In this case,
took and arranged bets on the Jai Alai game by "selling illegal the search warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of the Judge to conform
tickets known as 'Masiao tickets' without any authority from the with the essential requisites of taking the depositions in writing and attaching them
Philippine Jai Alai & Amusement Corporation or from the to the record, rendering the search warrant invalid.
government authorities concerned. Bayona issued a search
warrant. Petitioner filed a motion to quash and annul the search The searching questions propounded to the applicants of the search warrant and
warrant and for the return of the articles seized, invoking Sec. his witnesses must depend to a large extent upon the discretion of the Judge just
4, Rule 126 Revised Rules of Court, but was denied. In this as long as the answers establish a reasonable ground to believe the commission
instant petition, he prays the SC declare the search warrant of a specific offense and that the applicant is one authorized by law, and said
invalid and all articles confiscated by inadmissible as evidence. answers particularly describe with certainty the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized. The examination or investigation which must be
Mata contends that the warrant was based merely on the under oath may not be in public. It may even be held in the secrecy of his
application for search warrant and a joint affidavit of private chambers. Far more important is that the examination or investigation is not merely
respondents which were wrongfully subscribed and sworn to routinary but one that is thorough and elicit the required information. To repeat, it
before the Clerk of Court of respondent Judge. Furthermore, must be under oath and must be in writing.
there was allegedly a failure on the part of Bayona to attach the
necessary papers pertinent to the issuance of the search Return of things seized cannot be ordered. It was held that the illegality of the
warrant to the records of the Criminal Case wherein petitioner search warrant does not call for the return of the things seized, the possession of
is accused under PD 810, as amended by PD 1306. which is prohibited. In this case, the stock of “masiao” tickets and issue tickets, bet
money, control pad or “masiao” numbers, stamping pad with rubber stamp cannot
be returned.

Note: A deposition is the testimony of a witness, put or taken in writing, under oath
or affirmation before a commissioner, examiner or other judicial officer, in answer
to interlocutory and cross interlocutory, and usually subscribed by the witnesses

12. PEOPLE V. DEL ROSARIO (1994) – NIGHT RAID SQUAD FOR SHABU #SQUADGOALS CHAR HAHA

Respondent: Normando Del Rosario RESPONDENT ACQUITTED

Issue:
Del Rosario was convicted for Illegal Possession of Firearm and
Ammunitions and Illegal Sale of Regulated Drugs.
A search warrant was issued in the morning authorizing the
search and seizure of an “undetermined quantity of shabu and
its paraphernalia” in the premises of Del Rosario’s house.
However, it was not implemented immediately due to lack of
police personnel to form the raiding team. At 9PM, a raiding
team was organized. PO1 Luna bought shabu with the marked
money and after his return, they implemented the search
warrant. They found a black canister containing shabu, an
aluminum foil, plastic .22 caliber, 3 used ammunition in a cup
and 3 wallets. Seized items were turned over to the court.
The manner the police officers conducted the subsequent and much-delayed
search is highly irregular and thus, casts serious doubts that the shabu was actually
seized at the residence of Del Rosario. Upon barging into the residence, the police
officers found him lying down and they immediately arrested and detained him in
the living room while they searched the other parts of the house. Although they
fetched two persons to witness the search, the witnesses were called in only after
the policemen had already entered accused-appellant's residence, and, therefore,
the policemen had more than ample time to plant the shabu. Corollary to the
constitutional precept that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved (Sec. 14(2), Article III, Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines) is the rule that in order to convict an accused
the circumstances of the case must exclude all and each and every hypothesis
consistent with his innocence. The facts of the case do not rule out the hypothesis
that accused-appellant is innocent.
Also, Del Rosario cannot be convicted of illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition, given that the search warrant implemented by the raiding party
authorized only the search and seizure of “shabu and paraphernalia.” A search
warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a
fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles
relating to a crime. The Constitution itself (Section 2, Article III) and the Rules of
Court (Section 3, Rule 126) specifically mandate that the search warrant must
particularly describe the things to be seized.

Note: There is total absence of evidence because testimonies of the raiding squad
were all hearsay, therefore, without any evidentiary weight whatsoever.

MBL_1B_SBU_COL_2018-2019