KHO V MACALINTAL On May 15, 1990, NBI Agent Max B.

Salvador applied for the issuance of search warrants by the respondent Judge against Banjamin V. Kho, now petitioner, in his residence at No. 45 Bb. Ramona Tirona St., BF Homes, Phase I, Paranaque. On the same day, Eduardo T. Arugay, another NBI agent, applied with the same court for the issuance of search warrants against the said petitioner in his house at No. 326 McDivitt St., Bgy. Moonwalk, Paranaque. The search warrants were applied for after teams of NBI agents had conducted a personal surveillance and investigation in the two houses referred to on the basis of confidential information they received that the said places were being used as storage centers for unlicensed firearms and chop-chop vehicles. Respondent NBI sought for the issuance of search warrants in anticipation of criminal cases to be instituted against petitioner Kho. On the same day, the respondent Judge conducted the necessary examination of the applicants and their witnesses, after which he issued Search Warrant Nos. 90-11, 90-12, 90-13, 90-14, and 90-15. On the following day, May 16, 1990, armed with Search Warrant Nos. 90-11 and 90-12, NBI agents searched subject premises at BF Homes, Paranaque, and they recovered various high-powered firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Meanwhile, another search was conducted at the house at No. 326 McDivitt St. Bgy. Moonwalk, Paranaque, by another team of NBI agents using Search Warrant Nos. 90-13, 90-14 and 90-15. The said second search yielded several high-powered firearms with explosives and more than a thousand rounds of ammunition. The simultaneous searches also resulted in the confiscation of various radio and telecommunication equipment, two units of motor vehicles (Lite-Ace vans) and one motorcycle. Petitioners question the issuance of subject search warrants, theorizing upon the absence of any probable cause therefor. They contend that the surveillance and investigation conducted by NBI agents within the premises involved, prior to the application for the search warrants under controversy, were not sufficient to vest in the applicants personal knowledge of facts and circumstances showing or indicating the commission of a crime by them (petitioners).

ISSUE; WON THERE IS A PROBABLE CAUSE? RULING:YES.Records show that the NBI agents who conducted the surveillance and investigation testified unequivocably that they saw guns being carried to and unloaded at the two houses searched, and motor vehicles and spare parts were stored therein. In fact, applicant Max B. Salvador declared that he personally attended the surveillance together with his witnesses (TSN, May 15, 1990, pp. 2-3), and the said witnesses personally saw the weapons being unloaded from motor vehicles and carried to the premises referred to. NBI Agent Ali Vargas testified that he actually saw the firearms being unloaded from a Toyota Lite-Ace van and brought to the aformentioned house in BF Homes, Paranaque because he was there inside the compound posing as an appliance agent (TSN, May 15, 1990, pp. 4-5). It is therefore decisively clear that the application for the questioned search warrants was based on the personal knowledge of the applicants and their witnesses. the Court discerns no basis for disturbing the findings and conclusions arrived at by the respondent Judge after examining the applicants and witnesses. Respondent judge had the singular opportunity to assess their testimonies and to find out their personal knowledge of facts and circumstances enough to create a probable cause. The Judge was the one who personally examined the applicants and witnesses and who asked searching questions vis-a-vis the applications for search warrants. He was thus able to observe and determine whether subject applicants and their witnesses gave accurate accounts of the surveillance and investigation they conducted at the premises to be searched. In the absence of any showing that respondent judge was recreant of his duties in connection with the personal examination he so conducted on the affiants before him, there is no basis for doubting the reliability and correctness of his findings and impressions.They fault respondent Judge for allegedly failing to ask specific questions they deem particularly important during the examination of the applicants and their witnesses. Nothing improper is perceived in the manner the respondent Judge conducted the examination of subject applicants for search warrants and their witnesses. He personally examined them under oath, and asked them searching questions

on the facts and circumstances personally known to them, in compliance with prescribed procedure and legal requirements. It can be gleaned that the sworn statements and affidavits submitted by the witnesses were duly attached to the pertinent records of the proceedings. It was within the discretion of the examining Judge to determine what questions to ask the witnesses so long as the questions asked are germane to the pivot of inquiry - the existence or absence of a probable cause.

BACHE & CO. VS. RUIZ (GR 32409, FEB. 27, 1971) Digest

FACTS: - Commissioner of Internal Revenue Vera wrote a letter addressed to Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz requesting the issuance of a search warrant against Bache& Co. (Phil.), Inc. and Frederick E. Seggerman for violation of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and authorizing Revenue Examiner Rodolfo de Leon to make and file the application for search warrant which was attached to the letter. -In the afternoon of the following day, De Leon and his witness, Arturo Logronio, went to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal. They brought with them the following papers: Veras letter-request; an application for search warrant already filled up but still unsigned by De Leon; an affidavit of Logronio subscribed before De Leon; a deposition in printed form of Logronio already accomplished and signed by him but not yet subscribed; and a search warrant already accomplished but still unsigned by Judge Ruiz. - At that time Judge Ruiz was hearing a certain case; so, by means of a note, he instructed his Deputy Clerk of Court to take the depositions of De Leon and Logronio. After the session had adjourned, Judge Ruiz was informed that the depositions had already been taken. The stenographer read to him her stenographic notes; and thereafter, Judge Ruiz asked respondent Logronio to take the oath and warned him that if his deposition was found to be false and without legal basis, he could be charged for perjury. -The Judge signed de Leons application for search warrant and Logronios deposition. Search Warrant was then signed by the judge and accordingly issued. 3 days later (a Saturday), the BIR agents served the search warrant to the corporation and Seggerman at the offices of the corporation.

ISSUE: WON the search warrant is valid.

HELD: Search warrant is invalid.

RATIO:

There was no personal examination conducted by the Judge of the complainant (De Leon) and his witness (Logronio). The judge did not ask either of the two any question the answer to which could possibly be the basis for determining whether or not there was probable cause against Bache & Co. and Seggerman. The participation of the judge in the proceedings which led to the issuance of the search was thus limited to listening to the stenographers readings of her notes, to a few words of warning against the commission of perjury, and to administering the oath to the complainant and his witness. This cannot be considered a personal examination. Personal examination by the judge of the complainant and his witnesses is necessary to enable him to determine the existence or non-existence of a probable cause. Next, the search warrant was issued for more than one specific offense. The search warrant was issued for at least 4 distinct offenses under the Tax Code. As ruled in Stonehill Such is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection with the disputed search warrants, that this Court deemed it fit to amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of Court that a search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense. Not satisfied with this qualification, the Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that no search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense. Lastly, the search warrant does not particularly describe the things to be seized.

PEOPLE VS. BENHUR MAMARIL G.R. No. 147607. January 22, 2004

Facts: SPO2 Chito Esmenda applied before the RTC for a search warrant authorizing the search for marijuana at the family residence of appellant Benhur. During the search operation, the searching team confiscated sachets of suspected marijuana leaves. Police officers took pictures of the confiscated items and prepared a receipt of the property seized and certified that the house was properly searched which was signed by the appellant and the barangay officials who witnessed the search. After the search, the police officers brought appellant and the confiscated articles to the PNP station. After weighing the specimens and testing the same, the PNP Crime Laboratory issued a report finding the specimens to be positive to the test for the presence of marijuana. Moreover, the person who conducted the examination on the urine sample of appellant affirmed that it was positive for the same. Appellant denied that he was residing at his parents house since he has been residing at a rented house and declared that it was his brother and the latters family who were residing with his mother, but on said search operation, his brother and family were out. He testified that he was at his parents house because he visited his mother, that he saw the Receipt of Property Seized for the first time during the trial and admitted that the signature on the certification that the house was properly search was his.

Issues: 1) Whether or not the trial court erred in issuing a search warrant.

2) Whether or not the accused-appellant waived his right to question the legality of the search.

3) Whether or not evidence seized pursuant to an illegal search be used as evidence against the accused.

Held: 1) The issuance of a search warrant is justified 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 an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. In determining the existence of probable cause, it is required that: 1) The judge must examine the complaint and his witnesses personally; 2) the examination must be under oath; 3) the examination must be reduced in writing in the form of searching questions and answers. The prosecution failed to prove that the judge who issued the warrant put into writing his examination of the applicant and his witnesses on the form of searching questions and answers before issuance of the search warrant. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are not sufficient. Such written examination is necessary in order that the judge may be able to properly determine the existence and non-existence of probable cause. Therefore, the search warrant is tainted with illegality by failure of the judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the examination in writing and attaching to the record, rendering the search warrant invalid. 2) At that time the police officers presented the search warrant, appellant could not determine if the search warrant was issued in accordance with law. It was only during the trial that appellant, through his counsel, had reason to believe that the search warrant was illegally issued. Moreover, appellant seasonably objected on constitutional grounds to the admissibility of the evidence seized pursuant to said warrant during the trial, after the prosecution formally offered its evidence. Under the circumstances, no intent to waive his rights can reasonably be inferred from his conduct before or during the trial. 3) No matter how incriminating the articles taken from the appellant may be, their seizure cannot validate an invalid warrant. The requirement mandated by the law that the examination of the complaint and his witnesses must be under oath and reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers was not complied with, rendering the search warrant invalid. Consequently, the evidence seized pursuant to illegal search warrant cannot be used in evidence against appellant in accordance with Section 3 (2) Article III of the Constitution.

TAN V SY TIONG GUE On January 11, 2006, an Information[3] for the crime of Robbery was filed against respondents Sy Tiong Gue, Felicidad Chan Sy, Sy Chim, Sy Tiong Yan, Sy Yu Bun, Sy Yu Siong, Sy Yu San, Bryan Sy Lim, Sy Yu Hui-Pabilona, Police Officer 1 (PO1) Mamerto J. Madronio, and PO1 Marvin Sumang for the alleged taking of P6,500,000.00 cash, 286 postdated checks, five boxes of Hennessy Cognac, a television set, a computer set, and other documents from the Guan Yiak Hardware.Consequently, on April 22, 2003, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Edgar A. Reyes filed two separate applications for the issuance of a search warrant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),

Manila. In the said applications, P/Insp. Reyes alleged that he had personal knowledge that respondent Felicidad Chan Sy had in her possession five boxes of Hennessy XO, as well as 286 company checks taken from Guan Yiak Hardware. He prayed that the court issue a search warrant authorizing him or any other agent of the law to take possession of the subject property and bring them before the court. Thereafter, or on April 22, 2003, Judge Lanzanas issued Search Warrant Nos. 03-3611[8] and 033612,[9] directing any peace officer to make an immediate search of the 8 th floor, 524 T. Pinpin, Binondo, Manila for five boxes of Hennessy XO; and the 7 th floor, 524 T. Pinpin, Binondo, Manila for various checks payable to the Guan Yiak Hardware, respectively; and, if found, to take possession thereof and bring the same before the court. However, the enforcement of Search Warrant No. 03-3612 yielded negative results.On May 21, 2003, respondents filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrants,[10] which petitioner opposed.[11] On September 1, 2003, the RTC issued an Order[12] denying the motion. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[13] but it was denied in the Order[14] dated October 28, 2003. ISSUE:The sole issue to be determined in the instant action is whether or not there was probable cause warranting the issuance by RTC of the subject search warrants. RULING:the validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.[19] In the case at bar, the CA concluded that the RTC did not comply with any of the requisites required for the issuance of the subject search warrants. The CA ratiocinated that although the RTC judge personally determined if probable cause existed by examining the witnesses through searching questions, and although the search warrants sufficiently described the place to be searched and things to be seized, there was no probable cause warranting the issuance of the subject search warrants. We do not agree. Jurisprudence dictates that probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a search warrant, is such reasons supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to believe that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper. Probable cause requires facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be searched A perusal of the Sinumpaang Salaysay[22] and the Transcript of Stenographic Notes[23] reveals that Judge Lanzanas, through searching and probing questions, was satisfied that there were good reasons to believe that respondents, accompanied by five maids, took five boxes of Hennessy XO owned by the Guan Yiak Hardware and brought them to the 8 th floor of 524 T. Pinpin St., Binondo, Manila The power to issue search warrants is exclusively vested in the trial judges in the exercise of their judicial functions. A finding of probable cause, which would merit the issuance of a search warrant, needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused.[26] The determination of whether probable cause exists as to justify the issuance of a search warrant is best left to the sound discretion of a judge.[27] Apparent in the case at bar and as aptly found by the RTC judge, there was probable cause justifying the issuance of the search warrants.

Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 FACTS: The challenged search warrant was issued by the respondent judge on May 10, 1984. The petitioner's house was searched two days later but none of the articles listed in the warrant was discovered. However, the officers conducting the search found in the premises one Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets which they confiscated. They are now the bases of the charge against the petitioner. Respondent Judge said that when PC Capt. Mauro P. Quinosa personally filed his application for a search warrant on May 10, 1984, he appeared before him in the company of his two (2) witnesses, Esmael Morada and Jesus Tohilida, both of whom likewise presented to him their respective affidavits taken by Pat. Josue V. Lining, a police investigator. As the application was not yet subscribed and sworn to, he proceeded to examine Captain Quillosa on the contents thereof to ascertain, among others, if he knew and understood the same. Afterwards, he subscribed and swore to the same before him. ISSUE: Whether the Respondent Judge failed to comply with the proper procedure in issuing the Search Warrant. HELD: Yes, mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record. Such written 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 person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false. We, therefore, hold that the search warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of the Judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the depositions in writing and attaching them to the record, rendering the search warrant invalid. (See Rule 126, Sec 4) The respondent judge also declared that he "saw no need to have applicant Quillosa's deposition taken considering that he was applying for a search warrant on the basis of the information provided by the witnesses whose depositions had already been taken by the undersigned. In other words, the applicant was asking for the issuance of the search warrant on the basis of mere hearsay and not of information personally known to him, as required by settled jurisprudence. PEOPLE V TUAN At around nine oclock in the morning on January 24, 2000, two male informants namely, Jerry Tudlong (Tudlong) and Frank Lad-ing (Lad-ing) arrived at the office of the 14 th Regional CIDG (Criminal Investigation and Detention Group) at DPS Compound, Marcoville, Baguio City, and reported to SPO2 Fernandez, Chief of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU), that a certain Estela Tuan had been selling marijuana at Barangay Gabriela Silang, Baguio City. Present at that time were Police Superintendent Isagani Neres, Regional Officer of the 14 th Regional CIDG; Chief Inspector Reynaldo Piay, Deputy Regional Officer; and other police officers SPO2 Fernandez set out to verify the report of Tudlong and Lad-ing. At around one oclock in the afternoon of the same day, he gave Tudlong and Lad-ing P300.00 to buy marijuana, and then accompanied the two informants to the accused-appellants house. Tudlong and Lad-ing entered accused-appellants house, while SPO2 Fernandez waited at the adjacent house. After thirty minutes, Tudlong and Lad-ing came out of accused-appellants house and showed SPO2 Fernandez the marijuana leaves they bought. After returning to the CIDG regional office, SPO2 Fernandez requested the laboratory examination of the leaves bought from accused-appellant. When said laboratory examination yielded positive results for marijuana, SPO2 Fernandez prepared an Application for Search Warrant for accused-appellants house. Two hours later, at around three oclock, Judge Cortes personally examined SPO2 Fernandez, Tudlong, and Lad-ing, after which, she issued a Search Warrant, being satisfied of the existence

of probable cause. Upon receipt of the Search Warrant, SPO2 Fernandez, his team supervisor Police Senior Inspector Rodolfo Castel, SPO1 Carrera, Police Senior Inspector Ricarte Marquez and PO2 Chavez implemented the warrant. Before going to the accused-appellants house, SPO2 Fernandez invited barangay officials to be present when the Search Warrant was to be served, but since no one was available, he requested one Eliza Pascual (Pascual), accused-appellants neighbor, to come along. The CIDG team thereafter proceeded to accused-appellants house. Even though accusedappellant was not around, the CIDG team was allowed entry into the house by Magno Baludda (Magno), accused-appellants father, after he was shown a copy of the Search Warrant. SPO2 Fernandez and Police Senior Inspector Ricarte Marquez guarded the surroundings of the house, [8] while SPO1 Carrera and PO2 Chavez searched inside. They saw a movable cabinet in accused-appellants room, below which they found a brick of marijuana and a firearm. The nine bricks of marijuana were brought to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for examination The Court of Appeals held that the contested search and consequent seizure of the marijuana bricks were done pursuant to the Search Warrant validly issued by the MTCC. There was no showing of procedural defects or lapses in the issuance of said Search Warrant as the records support that the issuing judge determined probable cause only after conducting the searching inquiry and personal examination of the applicant and the latters witnesses, in compliance with the requirements of the Constitution. Hence, the appellate court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant for illegal possession of marijuana. The Court of Appeals, however, modified the appealed RTC judgment by acquitting accusedappellant of the charge for illegal possession of firearm. According to the appellate court, the records were bereft of evidence that the gun supposedly confiscated from accused-appellant was unlicensed. Lastly, accused-appellant insists that the items allegedly seized from her house are inadmissible as evidence because the Search Warrant issued for her house was invalid for failing to comply with the constitutional and statutory requirements. Accused-appellant specifically pointed out the following defects which made said Search Warrant void: (1) the informants, Lad-ing and Tudlong, made misrepresentation of facts in the Application for Search Warrant filed with the MTCC; (2) Judge Cortes of the MTCC failed to consider the informants admission that they themselves were selling marijuana; and (3) the Search Warrant failed to particularly describe the place to be searched because the house was a two-storey building composed of several rooms. issue: won their is a valid search? ruling:yes. There is no dispute herein that the second and third factors for a validly issued search warrant were complied with, i.e., personal determination of probable cause by Judge Cortes; and examination, under oath or affirmation, of SPO2 Fernandez and the two informants, Lad-ing and Tudlong, by Judge Cortes. What is left for the Court to determine is compliance with the first and fourth factors, i.e., existence of probable cause; and particular description of the place to be searched and things to be seized. description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness.[41] In the case at bar, the address and description of the place to be searched in the Search Warrant was specific enough. There was only one house located at the stated address, which was accused-appellants residence, consisting of a structure with two floors and composed of several rooms. In view of the foregoing, the Court upholds the validity of the Search Warrant for accused-

appellants house issued by MTCC Judge Cortes, and any items seized as a result of the search conducted by virtue thereof, may be presented as evidence against the accused-appellant.