Burgos vs Chief of Staff G.R. No. L-64261, December 26, 1 !

4 "acts# Petitioners question the issuance of the two search warrants on

subversive materia%s, as i( the case at bar, the a$$%icatio( a(',or its su$$orti(g affi'avits must co(tai( a s$ecificatio(, stati(g +ith $articu%arit& the a%%ege' subversive materia% he has $ub%ishe' or is i(te('i(g to $ub%ish. Mere generalization will not suffice 1hus, the broad statement in +ol possession or has in &badilla2s application that petitioner -is in his control printing equipment and other

the premises of Metropolitan Mail and We Forum newspapers and the seizure of office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to have been used in subversive activities !t is contended b" petitioners that the documents necessitating the issuance of the sub#ect warrants could not have provided sufficient basis for the finding of a probable cause upon which a warrant ma" validl" issue in accordance with $ection %, &rticle !' of the ()*% +onstitution which provides, -$.+ % / / / and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e/cept upon probable cause to be determined b" the #udge, or such other responsible officer as ma" be authorized b" law, after e/amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he ma" produce, and $articu%ar%& 'escribi(g the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized -

paraphernalia, news publications and other documents which were used and are all continuousl" being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion punishable under Presidential 3ecree 445, as amended / / /- is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisf" the requirements of probable cause 6ereft of such particulars as would #ustif" a rinding of the e/istence of probable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant and it was a grave error for respondent #udge to have done so .quall" insufficient as basis for the determination of probable cause is the statement contained in the #oint affidavit of &le#andro M 7utierrez and Pedro 8 1ango, -that the evidence gathered and collated b" our unit clearl" shows that the premises above9 mentioned and the articles and things above9described were used and are continuousl" being used for subversive activities in conspirac" with, and to promote the ob#ective of, illegal organizations such as the :ight9a9Fire Movement, Movement for Free Philippines, and &pril ; Movement !n mandating that -no warrant shall issue e/cept upon probable cause to

)ssue# Whether the warrants were validl" issued *e%'# 0o Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonabl" discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the ob#ects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched &nd +he( the search +arra(t a$$%ie' for is 'irecte' agai(st a (e+s$a$er $ub%isher or e'itor i( co((ectio( +ith the $ub%icatio( of

be determined b" the #udge, / / / after e/amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he ma" produce< the +onstitution requires no less than personal knowledge b" the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant ma" be #ustified !n &lvarez vs. +ourt of First !nstance, =(5> this +ourt ruled that -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

e/istence of probable cause - &s couched, the quoted averment in said #oint affidavit filed before respondent #udge hardl" meets the test of sufficienc" established b" this +ourt in &lvarez case &nother factor which makes the search warrants under consideration constitutionall" ob#ectionable is that the" are in the nature of general warrants

machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner @ose 6urgos, @r publisher9editor of the -We Forum- newspaper, were seized Petitioners further pra" that a writ of preliminar" mandator" and prohibitor" in#unction be issued for the return of the seized articles, and that respondents, -particularl" the +hief :egal Efficer, Presidential $ecurit" +ommand, the @udge &dvocate 7eneral, &FP, the +it" Fiscal of Buezon +it", their representatives, assistants, subalterns, subordinates, substitute or successors- be en#oined from using the articles thus seized as evidence

-N B.NC / G.R. No. L-64261, December 26, 1 !4 0 12S- B3RG2S, SR., 12S- B3RG2S, 1R., B.4.N) S2R).N2 .ND 1.B3RG2S 5-D). S-R6)C-S, )NC., 7-8)8)2N-RS, 6S. 8*- C*)-" 2" S8."", .R5-D "2RC-S 2" 8*- 7*)L)77)N-S, 8*- C*)-" 7*)L)77)N- C2NS8.B3L.R4, 8*- C*)-" L-G.L 2"")C-R, 7R-S)D-N8).L S-C3R)84 C255.ND, 8*- 13DG- .D62C.8G-N-R.L, -8 .L., R-S72ND-N8S. D-C)S)2N -SC2L)N, 1.# &ssailed in this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminar" mandator" and prohibitor" in#unction is the validit" of two=?> search warrants issued on 3ecember *, ()4? b" respondent @udge .rnani +ruz9Pano, ./ecutive @udge of the then +ourt of First !nstance of Aizal =Buezon +it">, under which the premises known as 0o (), Aoad %, Pro#ect ;, Buezon +it", and *4C 8nits + D 3, AM$ 6uilding, Buezon &venue, Buezon +it", business addresses of the -Metropolitan Mail- and -We Forum- newspapers, respectivel", were searched, and office and printing

against petitioner @ose 6urgos, @r and the other accused in +riminal +ase 0o B9F??*4? of the Aegional 1rial +ourt of Buezon +it", entitled -People vs. @ose 6urgos, @r et al -=(> !n our Aesolution dated @une ?(, ()4%, respondents were required to answer the petition 1he plea for preliminar" mandator" and prohibitor" in#unction was set for hearing on @une ?4, ()4%, later reset to @ul" *, ()4%, on motion of the $olicitor 7eneral in behalf of respondents &t the hearing on @ul" *, ()4%, the $olicitor 7eneral, while opposing petitioners2 pra"er for a writ of preliminar" mandator" in#unction, manifested that respondents -will not use the aforementioned articles as evidence in the aforementioned case until final resolution of the legalit" of the seizure of the aforementioned articles, rendered moot and academic Aespondents would have this +ourt dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners had come to this +ourt without having previousl" sought the quashal of the search warrants before respondent #udge !ndeed, petitioners, before impugning the validit" of the warrants before this +ourt, should have filed a motion to quash said warrants in the court that issued / / /=?>

With this

manifestation, the pra"er for preliminar" prohibitor" in#unction was

them

=%>

6ut this procedural flaw notwithstanding, we take cognizance of

funds to release of detained persons from custod", has become a matter of e/ecutive benevolence or largesse -Gence, as soon as the" could, petitioners, upon suggestion of persons close to the President, like Fiscal Flaminiano, sent a letter to President Marcos, through counsel &ntonio +oronel asking the return at least of the printing equipment and vehicles &nd after such a letter had been sent, through +ol 6albino ' 3iego, +hief !ntelligence and :egal Efficer of the Presidential $ecurit" +ommand, the" were further encouraged to hope that the latter would "ield the desired results -&fter waiting in vain for five=5> months, petitioners finall" decided to come to +ourt - =pp (?%9(?C, Rollo> &lthough the reason given b" petitioners ma" not be flattering to our #udicial s"stem, We find no ground to punish or chastise them for an error in #udgment En the contrar", the e/tra#udicial efforts e/erted b" petitioners quite evidentl" negate the presumption that the" had abandoned their right to the possession of the seized propert", thereb" refuting the charge of laches against them Aespondents also submit the theor" that since petitioner @ose 6urgos, @r had used and marked as evidence some of the seized documents in +riminal +ase 0o B9F??4*?, he is now estopped from challenging the validit" of the search warrants We do not follow the logic of respondents 1hese documents lawfull" belong to petitioner @ose 6urgos, @r and he can do whatever he pleases with them, within legal bounds 1he fact that he has used them as evidence does not and cannot in an" wa" affect the validit" or invalidit" of the search warrants assailed in this petition $everal and diverse reasons have been advanced b" petitioners to nullif" the search warrants in question Petitioners fault respondent #udge for his alleged failure to conduct an e/amination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses,

this petition in view of the seriousness and urgenc" of the constitutional issues raised, not to mention the public interest generated b" the search of the -We Forum- offices, which was televised in +hannel * and widel" publicized in all metropolitan dailies 1he e/istence of this special circumstance #ustifies this +ourt to e/ercise its inherent power to suspend its rules !n the words of the revered Mr @ustice &bad $antos in the case of + 'da de Erdoveza vs Aa"mundo,
=C>

-it is alwa"s in the power of the

court =$upreme +ourt> to suspend its rules or to e/cept a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of #ustice require it / / / Aespondents likewise urge dismissal of the petition on ground of laches +onsiderable stress is laid on the fact that while said search warrants were issued on 3ecember *, ()4?, the instant petition impugning the same was filed onl" on @une (;, ()4% or after the lapse of a period of more than si/=;> months :aches is failure or negligence for an unreasonable and une/plained length of time to do that which, b" e/ercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier !t is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the part" entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it
=5>

Petitioners, in their +onsolidated Aepl", e/plained the reason for the dela" in the filing of the petition thus, -Aespondents should not find fault, as the" now do =p (, &nswer, p %, Manifestation> with the fact that the Petition was filed on @une (;, ()4%, more than half a "ear after the petitioners2 premises had been raided -1he climate of the times has given petitioners no other choice !f the" had waited this long to bring their case to court, it was because the" tried at first to e/haust other remedies 1he events of the past eleven=((> "ears had taught them that ever"thing in this countr", from release of public

as mandated b" the above9quoted constitutional provision as well as $ec C, Aule (?; of the Aules of +ourt
=;>

place that respondent #udge had in mind when he issued Warrant 0o ?F9 4? fb> !n the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with sufficient particularit", it has been held 2that the e/ecuting officer2s prior knowledge as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant 1his would seem to be especiall" true where the e/ecuting officer is the affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had issued, and when he knows that the #udge who issued the warrant intended the building described in the affidavit &nd it has also been said that the e/ecuting officer ma" look to the affidavit in the official court file to resolve an ambiguit" in the warrant as to the place to be searched =4>

1his ob#ection, however, ma" properl"

be considered moot and academic, as petitioners themselves conceded during the hearing on &ugust ), ()4%, that an e/amination had indeed been conducted b" respondent #udge of +ol &badilla and his witnesses $earch Warrants 0o ?F94?=a> and 0o ?F94?lb> were used to search two distinct places, 0o (), Aoad %, Pro#ect ;, Buezon +it" and *4C 8nits + D 3, AM$ 6uilding, Buezon &venue, Buezon +it", respectivel" Eb#ection is interposed to the e/ecution of $earch Warrant 0o ?F94? =b> at the latter address on the ground that the two search warrants pinpointed onl" one place where petitioner @ose 6urgos, @r was allegedl" keeping and concealing the articles listed therein, i e , 0o (), Aoad %, Pro#ect ;, Buezon +it" 1his assertion is based on that portion of $earch Warrant 0o ?F94?=b> which states, -Which have been used, and are being used as instruments and means of committing the crime of subversion penalized under P 3 445 as amended and he is keeping and concealing the same at () Aoad %, Pro#ect ;, Buezon +it" 1he defect pointed out is obviousl" a t"pographical error Precisel", two search warrants were applied for and issued because the purpose and intent were to search two distinct premises !t would be quite absurd and illogical for respondent #udge to have issued two warrants intended for one and the same place 6esides, the addresses of the places sought to be searched were specificall" set forth in the application, and since it was +ol &badilla himself who headed the team which e/ecuted the search warrants, the ambiguit" that might have arisen b" reason of the t"pographical error is more apparent than real 1he fact is that the place for which $earch Warrant 0o ?F9 4?=b> was applied for was *?4 8nits + D 3, AM$ 6uilding, Buezon &venue, Buezon +it", which address appeared in the opening paragraph of the said warrant
=*>

% &nother ground relied upon to annul the search warrants is the fact that although the warrants were directed against @ose 6urgos, @r alone, articles belonging to his co9petitioners @ose 6urgos, $r , 6a"ani $oriano and the @ 6urgos Media $ervices, !nc were seized $ection ?, Aule (?; of the Aules of +ourt, enumerates the personal properties that ma" be seized under a search warrant, to wit, -S-C. 2 Personal Property to be seized H & search warrant ma" be issued for the search and seizure of the following personal propert", Propert" sub#ect of the offense< Propert" stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense< and Propert" used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense 1he above rule does not require that the propert" to be seized should be owned b" the person against whom the search warrant is directed !t ma" or ma" not be owned b" him !n fact, under subsection =b> of the above9

Ebviousl", this is the same

quoted $ection ?, one of the properties that ma" be seized is stolen propert" 0ecessaril", stolen propert" must be owned b" one other than the person in whose possession it ma" be at the time of the search and seizure Ewnership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the propert" sought to be seized, as petitioner @ose 6urgos, @r was alleged to have in relation to the articles and propert" seized under the warrants C 0either is there merit in petitioners2 assertion that real properties were seized underthe disputed warrants 8nder &rticle C(5=5> of the +ivil +ode of the Philippines, -machiner", receptacles, instruments or implements intended b" the owner of the tenement for an industr" or works which ma" be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and which tend directl" to meet the needs of the said industr" or works- are considered immovable propert" !n 3avao $awmill +o vs. +astillo
=)>

!t is contended b" petitioners, however, that the above9mentioned documents could not have provided sufficient basis for the finding of a probable cause upon which a warrant ma" validl" issue in accordance with $ection %, &rticle !' of the ()*% +onstitution which provides, -$.+ % / / / and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e/cept upon probable cause to be determined b" the #udge, or such other responsible officer as ma" be authorized b" law, after e/amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he ma" produce, and particularl" describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized We find petitioners2 thesis impressed with merit Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonabl" discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the ob#ects 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 the publication of subversive materials, as in the case at bar, the application andIor its supporting affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularit" the alleged subversive material he has published or is intending to publish Mere generalization will not suffice 1hus, the broad statement in +ol possession or has in &badilla2s application that petitioner -is in his control printing equipment and other

where this legal provision

was invoked, this +ourt ruled that machiner" which is movable b" nature becomes immobilized when placed b" the owner of the tenement, propert" or plant, but not so when placed b" a tenant, usufructuar", or an" other person having onl" a temporar" right, unless such person acted as the agent of the owner !n the case at bar, petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land andIor building on which the machineries were placed 1his being the case, the machineries in question, while in fact bolted to the ground remain movable propert" susceptible to seizure under a search warrant 5 1he questioned search warrants were issued b" respondent #udge upon application of +ol Aolando 0 &badilla, !ntelligence Efficer of the P + Metrocom
=(F>

paraphernalia, news publications and other documents which were used and are all continuousl" being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion punishable under Presidential 3ecree 445, as amended / / /-=(?> is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisf" the requirements of probable cause 6ereft of such particulars as would #ustif" a rinding of the e/istence of probable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant and it was a grave error for respondent #udge to have done so

1he application was accompanied b" the @oint &ffidavit of

&le#andro M 7utierrez and Pedro 8 1ango =((> , members of the Metrocom !ntelligence and $ecurit" 7roup under +ol &badilla which conducted a surveillance of the premises prior to the filing of the application for the search warrants on 3ecember *, ()4?

.quall" insufficient as basis for the determination of probable cause is the statement contained in the #oint affidavit of &le#andro M 7utierrez and Pedro 8 1ango, -that the evidence gathered and collated b" our unit clearl" shows that the premises above9 mentioned and the articles and things above9described were used and are continuousl" being used for subversive activities in conspirac" with, and to promote the ob#ective of, illegal organizations such as the :ight9a9Fire Movement, Movement for Free Philippines, and &pril ; Movement =(%>

?>

$ubversive

documents,

pamphlets,

leaflets,

books,

and

other

publications to promote the ob#ectives and purposes of the subversive organizations known as Movement for Free Philippines, :ight9a9Fire Movement and &pril ; Movement< and, %> Motor vehicles used in the distributionIcirculation of the 2W. FEA8M2 and other subversive materials and propaganda, more particularl", (> 1o"ota9+orolla, colored "ellow with Plate 0o 0J& 4)?< ?> 3&1$80 pick9

!n mandating that -no warrant shall issue e/cept upon probable cause to be determined b" the #udge, / / / after e/amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he ma" produce< =(C> the +onstitution requires no less than personal knowledge b" the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant ma" be #ustified !n &lvarez vs. +ourt of First !nstance, =(5> this +ourt ruled that -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 e/istence of probable cause - &s couched, the quoted averment in said #oint affidavit filed before respondent #udge hardl" meets the test of sufficienc" established b" this +ourt in &lvarez case &nother factor which makes the search warrants under consideration constitutionall" ob#ectionable is that the" are in the nature of general warrants 1he search warrants describe the articles sought to be seized in this wise, -(> &ll printing equipment, paraphernalia, paper, ink, photo equipment, t"pewriters, cabinets, tables, communicationsIrecording equipment, tape recorders, dictaphone and the like used andIor connected in the printing of the -W. FEA8M2 newspaper and an" and all documents, communications, letters and facsimile of prints related to the 2W. FEA8M- newspaper

up colored white with Plate 0o 0J' );)< %> & deliver" truck with Plate 0o 06$ 5C?< C> 1EKE1&91&M&A&W, colored white with Plate 0o P6P ;;5< and, 5> 1EKE1& Gi9:u/, pick9up truck with Plate 0o 07' C*? with marking 26agong $ilang 2 !n $tanford vs. $tate of 1e/as,=(;> the search warrant which authorized the search for -books, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures, recordings and other written instruments concerning the +ommunist Parties of 1e/as, and the operations of the +ommunist Part" in 1e/as,- was declared void b" the 8 $ $upreme +ourt for being too general !n like manner, directions to -seize an" evidence in connection with the violation of $3+ (%9%*F% or otherwise- have been held too general, and that portion of a search warrant which authorized the seizure of an" 22paraphernalia which could be used to violate $ec 5C9()* of the +onnecticut 7eneral $tatutes =the statute dealing with the crime of conspirac">- was held to be a general warrant, and therefore invalid question cannot be characterized differentl" !n the $tanford case, the 8 $ $upreme +ourt calls to mind a notable chapter in .nglish histor", the era of disaccord between the 1udor 7overnment and the .nglish Press, when 22officers of the +rown were given roving commissions to search where the" pleased in order to suppress and
=(*>

1he

description of the articles sought to be seized under the search warrants in

destro" the literature of dissent both +atholic and Puritan - Aeference herein to such historical episode would not be relevant for it is not the polic" of our government to suppress an" newspaper or publication that speaks with -the voice of non9conformit"- but poses no clear and imminent danger to state securit" &s heretofore stated, the premises searched were the business and printing offices of the -Metropolitan Mail- and the -We Forum- newspapers &s a consequence of the search and seizure, these premises were padlocked and sealed, with the further result that the printing and publication of said newspapers were discontinued $uch closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental law, print
=(4>

-1he President denied a request filed b" government prosecutors for sequestration of the W. FEA8M newspaper and its printing presses, according to !nformation Minister 7regorio $ +endaLa -En the basis of court orders, government agents went to the We Forum offices in Buezon +it" and took a detailed inventor" of the equipment and all materials in the premises -+endana said that because of the denial, the newspaper and its equipment remain at the disposal of the owners, sub#ect to the discretion of the court -=()> 1hat the propert" seized on 3ecember *, ()4? had not been sequestered is further confirmed b" the repl" of then Foreign Minister +arlos P Aomulo to the letter dated Februar" (F, ()4% of 8 $ +ongressman 1on" P Gall addressed to President Marcos, e/pressing alarm over the -W. FEA8Mcase -?
=?F>

and

constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners2 freedom to e/press themselves in 1his state of being is patentl" anathematic to a democratic framework where a free, alert and even militant press is essential for the political enlightenment and growth of the citizenr"

!n this repl" dated Februar" ((, ()4%, Minister Aomulo stated, to reports, President Marcos turned down the

+ontrar"

Aespondents would #ustif" the continued sealing of the printing machines on the ground that the" have been sequestered under $ection 4 of Presidential 3ecree 0o 445, as amended, which authorizes -the sequestration of the propert" of an" person, natural or artificial, engaged in subversive activities against the government and its dul" constituted authorities / / / in accordance with implementing rules and regulations as ma" be issued b" the $ecretar" of 0ational 3efense - !t is doubtful, however, if sequestration could validl" be effected in view of the absence of an" implementing rules and regulations promulgated b" the Minister of 0ational 3efense

recommendation of our authorities to close the paper2s printing facilities and confiscate theequipment and materials it uses - =?(> )N 6)-9 2" 8*- "2R-G2)NG , $earch Warrants 0os ?F9 4?=a> and ?F9 4?=b> issued b" respondent #udge on 3ecember *, ()4? are hereb" declared null and void and are accordingl" set aside 1he pra"er for a writ of mandator" in#unction for the return of the seized articles is hereb" granted and all articles seized thereunder are hereb" ordered released to petitioners 0o costs S2 2RD-R-D.

6esides, in the 3ecember (F, ()4? issue of the Daily Express, it was reported that no less than President Marcos himself denied the request of the militar" authorities to sequester the propert" seized from petitioners on 3ecember *, ()4? 1hus, Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Conception Jr., Melencio-Herrera, Pland, Relova, !tierrez, Jr., De la F!ente and C!evas, JJ., concur

"ee#ankee, J., ! concur with the main opinion of Mr @ustice .scolin and the concurrence of Mr @ustice &bad $antos $bad %antos, J., see concurring opinion $&!ino, J., took no part

6uilding, Buezon &venue, Buezon +it", has in his possession and control at said address the following, /// =4>

;4 &m @ur ?d , *?) ;( Phil *F) &nne/ -+-, Petition, pp 5(95?, Rollo &nne/ -6-, Petition, pp 5%95C, Rollo &nne/ -+-, Petition, p 5(, Rollo &nne/ -3-, Petition, p 5C, Rollo $ec %, &rt !', ()*% +onstitution ;C Phil %% %*) 8 $ C*;, (% : .d ?nd C%( ;4 &m @ur ?d, pp *%;9*%* $ec ), &rt !' of the +onstitution &nne/ -J-, +onsolidated Aepl", p (*5, Rollo &nne/ -:-, +onsolidated Aepl", p (*4, Rollo &nne/ -M-, +onsolidated Aepl", p (*), Rollo

=)>

=(F>

=((>

=(>

Petition, P CC, Rollo. Manifestation and Epposition, P *5, Rollo. 1emplo vs 3ela +ruz, ;F $+A& ?)5 ;% Phil ?*5 1i#am vs $ibonghano", ?% $+A& ?) $ec C, Aule (?;, Aules of +ourt provides,

=(?>

=?>

=(%>

=%>

=(C>

=C>

=(5>

=5>

=(;>

=;>

=(*>

$ec C, ./amination of the &pplicant 99 1he municipal or cit" #udge must, before issuing the warrant, personall" e/amine on oath or affirmation the complainant and an" witnesses he ma" produce and take their deposition in writing and attach them to the record, in addition to an" affidavits presented to them
=*>

=(4>

=()>

=?F>

1he Epening paragraph of $earch Warrant 0o ?F94?=b> reads,

=?(>

-!t appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after e/amination under oath of Ma# &le#andro M 7utierrez and :t Pedro 8 1ango, that there are good and sufficient reason to believe that @ose 6urghos, @r Publisher9.ditor of 2W. FEA8M2 with office address at *4C 8nits + D 3, AM$ C2NC3RR)NG .B.D S.N82S, 1.#

! am glad to give m" concurrence to the ponencia of Mr @ustice .scolin &t the same time ! wish to state m" own reasons for holding that the search warrants which are the sub#ect of the petition are utterl" void 1he action against W. FEA8M was a naked suppression of press freedom for the search warrants were issued in gross violation of the +onstitution 1he +onstitutional requirement which is e/pressed in $ection %, &rticle !', stresses two points, namel", -M(N that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined b" the #udge in the manner set forth in said provision< and M?N that the warrant shall particularl" describe the things to be seized - M$tonehill vs . 3iokno, (?; Phil *%4, *C*< ?F $+A& %4%=();*> N &n" search which is conducted in disregard of the points mentioned above will result in wiping -out completel" one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our +onstitution, for it would place the sanctit" of the domicile and the privac" of communication and correspondence at the merc" of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers - M 'bid , p *C4 N 1he two search warrants were issued without probable cause 1o satisf" the requirement of probable cause a specific offense must be alleged in the application< abstract averments will not suffice !n the case at bar nothing specificall" subversive has been alleged< stated onl" is the claim that certain ob#ects were being used as instruments and means of committing the offense of subversion punishable under P 3 0o 445, as amended 1here is no mention of an" specific provision of the decree !n the words of +hief @ustice +oncepsion, -!t would be legal heres", of the highest order, to convict an"bod"- of voilating the decree without reference to an" determinate provision thereof 1he search warrants are also void for lack of particularit" 6oth search warrants authorize +ol Aolando &badilla to seize and take possession, among other things, of the following,

-$ubversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books and other publication to promote the ob#ectives and purposes of the subversive organizations known as Movement for Free Philippines, :ight9a9Fire Movement and &pril ; Movement 1he obvious questions is, Wh" were documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, etc subversiveOWhat did the" contain to make them subversiveO 1here is nothing in the applications nor in the warrants which answers the questions ! must, therefore, conclude that the warrants are (eneral warrants which are obno/ious to the +onstitution !n point of fact, there was nothing subversive published in the W. FEA8M #ust as there is nothing subversive which has been published in M&:&K& which has replaced the former and has the same content but against which no action has been taken +onformabl" with e/isting #urisprudence ever"thing seized pursuant to the warrants should be returned to the owners and all of the items are sub#ect to the e/clusionar" rule of evidence