Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PROBABLE CAUSE
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; SEARCH WARRANT; DEFINITION. A
search warrant is an order in writing, issued in the name of
the People of the Philippine Islands, signed by a judge or a
justice of the peace, and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to search for personal property and bring it
before the court (section 95, General Orders, No. 58, as
amended by section 6 of Act No. 2886).
2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. Of all
the rights of a citizen, few are of greater importance or more
essential to his peace and happiness than the right of
personal security, and that involves the exemption of his
private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and
scrutiny of others (In re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 Fed.,
241; Interstate Commerce Commn. vs. Brimson, 38 Law. ed.,
1047; Boyd vs. U.S., 29 Law. ed., 746; Carroll vs. U. S., 69
Law. ed., 543, 549). While the power to search and seize is
necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and
the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional
rights of citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of
sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic
principles of government (People vs. Elias, 147 N. E., 472).
3. ID.; ID. As the protection of the citizen and the
maintenance of his constitutional rights is one of the highest
duties and privileges of the court, these constitutional
guaranties should be given a liberal construction or a strict
construction in favor of the individual, to prevent stealthy
encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation of, the rights
secured by them (State vs. Custer County, 198 Pac., 362;
State vs. McDaniel, 231 Pac., 965; 237 Pac., 373). Since the
proceeding is a drastic one, it is the general rule that
statutes authorizing searches and seizures or search warrants
must be strictly construed (Rose vs. St. Clair, 28 Fed. [2d],
189; Leonard vs. U. S., 6 Fed. [2d], 353; Perry vs. U. S., 14
Fed. [2d], 88; Cofer vs. State, 118 So., 613).
4. ID.; ID.; OATH. In its broadest sense, 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; and it is sometimes defined as an outward pledge
given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is
made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God
(Bouvier's Law Dictionary; State vs. Jackson, 137 N. W.,
1034; In re Sage, 24 Oh. Cir. Ct. [N. S.], 7; Pumphrey vs.
State, 122 N. W., 19; Priest vs. State, 6 N. W., 468; State vs.
Jones, 154 Pac., 378; Atwood vs. State, 111 So., 865). 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 (U. S. vs. Tureaud, 20 Fed., 621; U. S. vs.
Michalski, 265 Fed., 839; U. S. vs. Pitotto, 267 Fed., 603; U.
S. vs. Lai Chew, 298 Fed., 652.) 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 (State vs. Roosevelt County 20th Jud. Dis.
Ct., 244 Pac. 280; State vs. Quartier, 236 Pac., 746).
5. ID.; UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. Unreasonable
searches and seizures are a menace against which the
constitutional guaranties afford full protection. The term
"unreasonable search and seizure" is not defined in the
Constitution or in General Orders, No. 58, and it is said to
have no fixed, absolute or unchangeable meaning, although
the term has been defined in general language. All illegal
searches and seizures are unreasonable while lawful ones are
reasonable. What constitute 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 (Go-Bart
Importing Co., vs. U.S., 75 Law. ed., 374; Peru vs. U. S., 4
Fed. [2d], 881; U.S., vs. Vatune, 229 Fed., 497; Agnello vs. U.
S., 70 Law. ed., 145; Lambert vs. U. S. 282 Fed., 413; U. S.
vs. Bateman, 278 Fed., 231; Mason vs. Rollins, 16 Fed. Cas.
[No. 9252], 2 Biss., 99).
6. ID.; ID.; NECESSITY OF TAKING THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE
WITNESSES. Neither the Constitution nor General Orders,
No 58 provides it of imperative necessity to take the
depositions of the witnesses to be presented by the applicant
or complainant in addition to the affidavit of the latter. The
purpose of both in requiring the presentation of depositions
is nothing else than to satisfy the committing magistrate of
the existence of probable cause. Therefore, if the affidavit
of the applicant or complainant is sufficient, the judge may
dispense with that of other witnesses. 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 was 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 if the judge is satisfied that there exists
probable cause; when the applicants knowledge of the facts
is mere hearsay, the affidavit of one or more witnesses
having personal knowledge of the facts is necessary. We
conclude, therefore, that the warrant issued is likewise
illegal because it was based only on the affidavit of the agent
who had no personal knowledge of the facts.
||| (Alvarez v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, G.R. No.
45358, [January 29, 1937], 64 PHIL 33-51)
PERSONAL DETERMINATION
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; DUE PROCESS OF
LAW; RESPONDENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE NEED NOT FILE HIS
COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS BEFORE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS
DEEMED COMPLETED. Due process of law does not require
that the respondent in a criminal case actually file his
counter-affidavits before the preliminary investigation is
deemed completed. All that is required is that the
respondent be given the opportunity to submit counter-
affidavits if he is so minded.
2. ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR
PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS; ISSUANCE OF
WARRANT OF ARREST; PROBABLE CAUSE; THE JUDGE HAS
EXCLUSIVE AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE
EXISTENCE OF; THE PRESIDENT. This case is not a simple
prosecution for libel. We have as complainant a powerful and
popular President who heads the investigation and
prosecution service and appoints members of appellate
courts but who feels so terribly maligned that she has taken
the unorthodox step of going to court inspite of the
invocations of freedom of the press which would inevitably
follow.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; HARASSMENT INHERENT IN ANY CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD DRAW THE
DEMARCATION LINE WHERE HARASSMENT GOES BEYOND USUAL
DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED BY ANY ACCUSED. There is
always bound to be harassment inherent in any criminal
prosecution. Where the harassment goes beyond the usual
difficulties encountered by any accused and results in an
unwillingness of media to freely criticize government or to
question government handling of sensitive issues and public
affairs, this Court and not a lower tribunal should draw the
demarcation line.
||| (Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, 82827, 83979
(Resolution), [November 14, 1988], 249 PHIL 394-406)
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT AGAINST
UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE; PURPOSE. The purpose of
the constitutional provision against unlawful searches and
seizures is to prevent violations of private security in person
and property, and unlawful invasion of the sanctity of the
home, by officers of the law acting under legislative or
judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such
usurpations when attempted. (Alvero vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637
[1946]).
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SEARCH WARRANT; REQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE
THEREOF. Based on Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution and Sections 3 and 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court, the judge must, before issuing a search warrant,
determine whether there is probable cause by examining the
complainant and witnesses through searching questions and
answers.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROBABLE CAUSE; DEFINED. In the
case of Prudente vs. Dayrit, G.R. No. 82870, December 14,
1989, 180 SCRA 69, 767 this Court defined "probable cause" as
follows: "The 'probable cause' for a valid search warrant, 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 objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be
searched'. This probable cause must be shown to be within
the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses
he may produce and not based on mere hearsay."
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DUTY OF JUDGE TO PERSONALLY
EXAMINE THE APPLICANT AND THE WITNESSES; EFFECT OF
FAILURE TO COMPLY. In issuing a search warrant,
the judge must strictly comply with the constitutional and
statutory requirement that he must determine the existence
of probable cause by personally examining the applicant and
his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers.
His failure to comply with this requirement constitutes grave
abuse of discretion. As declared in Marcelo vs. De Guzman,
G.R. No. L-29077, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 667, "the
capricious disregard by the judge in not complying with the
requirements before issuance of search warrants constitutes
abuse of discretion".
||| (Silva v. Presiding Judge, RTC of Negros Oriental, Br.
XXXIII, Dumaguete City, G.R. No. 81756, [October 21, 1991])
The primary issue in these consolidated petitions centers on
whether or not a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without
bail by simply relying on the prosecution's certification and
recommendation that a probable cause exists.
|||There is no problem with search warrants which are
relatively fewer and far between and where there is no
duplication of work between the Judge and the Prosecutor.
The problem lies with warrants of arrest especially in
metropolitan or highly urban areas. If a Judge has to
personally question each complainant and witness or go over
the records of the Prosecutor's investigation page by page
and word for word before he acts on each of a big pile of
applications for arrest warrants on his desk, he or she may
have no more time for his or her more important judicial
functions. LexLib
At the same time, the Judge cannot ignore the clear words of
the 1987 Constitution which requires ". . . probable cause to
be personally determined by the judge . . .", not by any
other officer or person.
If a Judge relies solely on the certification of the Prosecutor
as in this case where all the records of the investigation are
in Masbate, he or she has not personallydetermined probable
cause. The determination is made by the Provincial
Prosecutor. The constitutional requirement has not been
satisfied. The Judge commits a grave abuse of discretion.
The records of the preliminary investigation conducted by
the Municipal Court of Masbate and reviewed by the
respondent Fiscal were still in Masbate when the respondent
Fiscal issued the warrants of arrest against the petitioners.
There was no basis for the respondent Judge to make his own
personal determination regarding the existence of a probable
cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest as mandated
by the Constitution. He could not possibly have known what
transpired in Masbate as he had nothing but a certification.
Significantly, the respondent Judge denied the petitioners'
motion for the transmittal of the records on the ground that
the mere certification and recommendation of the
respondent Fiscal that a probable cause exists is sufficient
for him to issue a warrant of arrest. prLL
We reiterate the ruling in Soliven v. Makasiar that the Judge
does not have to personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as
a commissioner for the taking of the evidence. However,
there should be a report and necessary documents supporting
the Fiscal's bare certification. All of these should be before
the Judge.
The extent of the Judge's personal examination of the report
and its annexes depends on the circumstances of each case.
We cannot determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustive
the Judge's examination should be. The Judge has to exercise
sound discretion for, after all, the personal determination is
vested in the Judge bythe Constitution. It can be as brief or
as detailed as the circumstances of each case require. To be
sure, the Judge must go beyond the Prosecutor's certification
and investigation report whenever necessary. He should call
for the complainant and witnesses themselves to answer the
court's probing questions when the circumstances of the case
so require. LLjur
It is worthy to note that petitioners Vicente Lim, Sr. and
Susana Lim presented to the respondent Judge documents of
recantation of witnesses whose testimonies were used to
establish a prima facie case against them. Although, the
general rule is that recantations are not given much weight in
the determination of a case and in the granting of a new trial
(Tan Ang Bun v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-47747,
February 15, 1990, People v. Lao Wan Sing, 46 SCRA 298
[1972]) the respondent Judge before issuing his own warrants
of arrest should, at the very least, have gone over the
records of the preliminary examination conducted earlier in
the light of the evidence now presented by the concerned
witnesses in view of the "political undertones" prevailing in
the cases. Even the Solicitor General recognized the
significance of the recantations of some witnesses when he
recommends a reinvestigation of the cases
||| (Lim, Sr v. Felix, G.R. Nos. 94054-57, 94266-69, [February
19, 1991], 272 PHIL 122-138)
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT AGAINST
UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE; REQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE
OF SEARCH WARRANT. Under the Constitution "no search
warrant shall issue but 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". More emphatic and detailed is the implementing
rule of the constitutional injunction, Section 4 of Rule 126
which provides that the judge must before issuing the
warrant personally examine on oath or affirmation the
complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take
their depositions in writing, and attach them to the record,
in addition to any affidavits presented to him.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INSUFFICIENCY OF AFFIDAVITS OF
COMPLAINANT AND HIS WITNESSES IN THE CASE AT BAR.
Before issuing a search warrant, the 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 deposition is necessary in order that the Judge
may be able to properly determine the existence or non-
existence of the probable cause, and to hold liable for
perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his
declarations are false. Mere affidavits of the complainant and
his witnesses are thus not sufficient.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NO "DEPOSITION IN WRITING" ATTACHED
TO RECORDS OF CASE IN CASE AT BAR. The judge's
insistence that she examined the complainants under oath
has become dubious by petitioner's claim that at the
particular time when he examined all the relevant papers
connected with the issuance of the questioned search
warrant, after he demanded the same from the lower court
since they were not attached to the records, he did not find
any certification at the back of the joint affidavit of the
complainants. Before he filed his motion to quash the search
warrant and for the return of the articles seized, he was
furnished, upon his request, certified true copies of the said
affidavits by the Clerk of Court but which certified true
copies do not bear any certification at the back. Petitioner
likewise claims that his xerox copy of the said joint affidavit
obtained at the outset of this case does not show also the
certification of respondent judge. This doubt becomes more
confirmed by respondent Judge's own admission, while
insisting that she did examine thoroughly the applicants, that
"she did not take the deposition of Mayote and Goles because
to have done so would be to hold a judicial proceeding which
will be open and public", such that, according to her, the
persons subject of the intended raid will just disappear and
move his illegal operations somewhere else. Could it be that
the certification was made belatedly to cure the defect of
the warrant? Be that as it may, there was no "deposition in
writing" attached to the records of the case in palpable
disregard of the statutory prohibition heretofore quoted.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DEPOSITIONS, HOW TAKEN. The
searching questions propounded to the applicants of the
search warrant and his witnesses must depend to a large
extent upon the discretion of the Judge just as long as the
answers establish a reasonable ground to believe the
commission of a specific offense and that the applicant is one
authorized by law, and said 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 under oath may not be in public. It may even be held
in the secrecy of his chambers. Far more important is that
the examination or investigation is not merely routinary but
one that is thorough and elicit the required information. To
repeat, it must be under oath and must be in writing.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; MUST BE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH; CASE
AT BAR. Nothing can justify the issuance of the search
warrant but the fulfillment of the legal requisites. Thus, in
issuing a search warrant the Judge must strictly comply with
the requirements of the Constitution and the statutory
provisions. In the case at bar, the search warrant is tainted
with illegality by the failure of the Judge to conform with
essential requisites of taking the depositions in writing and
attaching them to record, rendering the search warrant
invalid.
||| (Mata v. Bayona, G.R. No. 50720, [March 26, 1984], 213
PHIL 348-355)
PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURE; IMPORTANCE. The
constitutional right provided in Sec. 2, Art. III of the present
Constitution protects a citizen against wanton and
unreasonable invasion of his privacy and liberty as to his
person, papers and effects. We have explained in the case
of People v. Burgos (144 SCRA 1) citing Villanueva
v.Querubin (48 SCRA 345) why the right is so important: "'It is
deference to one's personality that lies at the core of this
right but it could be also looked upon as a recognition of a
constitutionally protected area, primarily one's home, but
not necessarily thereto confined. (Cf. Hoffa v. United States,
385 US 293 [1966]) What is sought to be guarded is a man's
prerogative to choose who is allowed entry to his residence.
In that haven of refuge, his individuality can assert itself not
only in the choice of who shall be welcome but likewise in
the kind of objects he wants around him. There the state,
however powerful, does not as such have access except
under the circumstances above noted, for in the traditional
formulation, his house, however humble, is his castle. Thus is
outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government, which is
called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and
to respect the privacies of his life. (Cf. Schmerber v.
California, 384 US 757 [1966], Brennan, J. and Boyd v. United
States, 116 630 [1886]). In the same vein, Landynski in his
authoritative work (Search and Seizure and the Supreme
Court [1966]), could fitly characterize constitutional right as
the embodiment of a 'spiritual concept: the belief that to
value the privacy of home and person and to afford its
constitutional protection against the long reach of
government is no less than to value human dignity, and that
his privacy must not be disturbed except in case of overriding
social need, and then only under stringent procedural
safeguards.' (ibid, p. 74).'"
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANT; RESTRICTED
BY THE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES PROVISION. The
government's right to issue search warrants against a citizen's
papers and effects is circumscribed by the requirements
mandated in the searches and seizures provision of the
Constitution.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROBABLE CAUSE; DEFINED. In the case
of Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff , AFP (133 SCRA 800), we
defined probable cause for a valid search "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."
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF COMPLAINANT
OR WITNESSES, REQUIRED. This constitutional provision
also demands "no less than personal knowledge by the
complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the
issuance of a search warrant may be justified" in order to
convince the judge, not the individual making the affidavit
and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of
a probable cause. (Alvarez v. Court of First Instance, 64 Phil.
33; Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP, supra).
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT,
PRESENTATION OF MASTER TAPES ALLEGEDLY COPIED IS
NECESSARY. The essence of a copyright infringement is the
similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported
pirated works to the copyrighted work. Hence, the applicant
must present to the court the copyrighted films to compare
them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes
allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an
unauthorized reproduction of the former. This linkage of the
copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to
satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations
as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as
basis for the issuance of a search warrant.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; GENERAL WARRANTS, A VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. In the case of Burgos v. Chief of
Staff, AFP supra, we stated: "Another factor which makes the
search warrants under consideration constitutionally
objectionable is that they are in the nature of general
warrants." Undoubtedly, a similar conclusion can be deduced
from the description of the articles sought to be confiscated
under the questioned search warrants. Television sets, video
cassette recorders, rewinders and tape cleaners are articles
which can be found in a video tape store engaged in the
legitimate business of lending or renting out betamax tapes.
In short, these articles and appliances are generally
connected with, or related to a legitimate business not
necessarily involving piracy of intellectual property or
infringement of copyright laws. Hence, including these
articles without specification and/or particularity that they
were really instruments in violating an Anti-Piracy law makes
the search warrant too general which could result in the
confiscation of all items found in any video store.
||| (20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
Nos. 76649-51, [August 19, 1988], 247 PHIL 624-637)
We find merit in the Petition.
Section 3, Article IV of the Constitution, guarantees the right
of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose. It also specifically
provides that no Search Warrant 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 things to be
seized.
The disputed Search Warrant (No. 80-84) describes the
personalities to be seized as follows:
"Documents, papers and other records of the Communist
Party of the Philippines/New Peoples Army and/or the
National Democratic Front, such as Minutes of the Party
Meetings, Plans of these groups, Programs, List of possible
supporters, subversive books and instructions, manuals not
otherwise available to the public, and support money from
foreign or local sources."
It is at once evident that the foregoing Search Warrant
authorizes the seizure of personal properties vaguely
described and not particularized. It is an all-embracing
description which includes everything conceivable regarding
the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National
Democratic Front. It does not specify what the subversive
books and instructions are; what the manuals not otherwise
available to the public contain to make them subversive or to
enable them to be used for the crime of rebellion. There is
absent a definite guideline to the searching team as to what
items might be lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the
law discretion regarding what articles they should seize as, in
fact, taken also were a portable typewriter and 2 wooden
boxes. It is thus in the nature of a general warrant and
infringes on the constitutional mandate requiring particular
description of the things to be seized. In the recent rulings of
this Court, search warrants of similar description were
considered null and void for being too general.
||| The foregoing questions propounded by respondent
Executive Judge to the applicant's witness are not sufficiently
searching to establish probable cause. The "probable cause"
required to justify the issuance of a search warrant
comprehends such facts and circumstances as will induce a
cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuant
thereof. 10 Of the 8 questions asked, the 1st, 2nd and 4th
pertain to identity. The 3rd and 5th are leading not searching
questions. The 6th, 7th and 8th refer to the description of
the personalities to be seized, which is identical to that in
the Search Warrant and suffers from the same lack of
particularity. The examination conducted was general in
nature and merely repetitious of the deposition of said
witness. Mere generalization will not suffice and does not
satisfy the requirements of probable cause upon which a
warrant may issue, ||| (Nolasco v. Pao, G.R. No. L-69803,
[October 8, 1985], 223 PHIL 363-383)
EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES
I. The next question that may be asked is
whether or not there was a valid search and
seizure in this case. While the matter has not
been squarely put in issue, we deem it our
bounden duty, in light of advertence thereto by
the parties, to delve into the legality of the
warrantless search conducted by the raiding
them, considering the gravity of the offense for
which herein appellant stands to be convicted
and the penalty sought to be imposed.
It is admitted that the military operatives who
raided the Eurocar Sales Office were not armed
with a search warrant at that time. 15 The raid
was actually precipitated by intelligence reports
that said office was being used as headquarters
by the RAM. 16 Prior to the raid, there was a
surveillance conducted on the premises wherein
the surveillance team was fired at by a group of
men coming from the Eurocar building. When the
military operatives raided the place, the
occupants thereof refused to open the door
despite the requests for them to do so, thereby
compelling the former to break into the
office. 17 The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously
not a gun store and it is definitely not an armory
or arsenal which are the usual depositories for
explosives and ammunition. It is primarily and
solely engaged in the sale of automobiles. The
presence of an unusual quantity of high-powered
firearms and explosives could not be justifiably or
even colorably explained. In addition, there was
general chaos and disorder at that time because
of simultaneous and intense firing within the
vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp
Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel
forces. 18 The courts in the surrounding areas
were obviously closed and, for that matter, the
building and houses therein were deserted.
Under the foregoing circumstances, it is out
considered opinion that the instant case falls
under one of the exceptions to the prohibition
against a warrantless search. In the first place,
the military operatives, taking into account the
facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable
ground to believe that a crime was being
committed. There was consequently more than
sufficient probable cause to warrant their action.
Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing,
the raiding team had no opportunity to apply for
and secure a search warrant from the courts. The
trial judge himself manifested that on December
5, 1989 when the raid was conducted, his court
was closed.19 Under such urgency and exigency
of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully
be dispensed with. LexLib
XXXX
SYNOPSIS
This is a petition for review of the decision of the
court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR No. 13976 dated
January 16, 1995 which affirmed in toto the
judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 1, convicting petitioner Rodolfo Espano
for violation of Article II Section 8 of Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as
theDangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The records of
the case reveal that herein petitioner was caught
in possession of and under his custody twelve
plastic cellophane bags weighing 5.5 grams
containing crushed flowering tops, marijuana
which is a prohibited drug. In his appeal before
the Supreme Court, petitioner contends that the
trial and appellate courts erred in convicting him
because (1) the pieces of evidence seized were
inadmissible; (2) the superiority of his
constitutional right to be presumed innocent over
the doctrine of presumption of regularity; (3) he
was denied the constitutional right of
confrontation and to compulsory process; and (4)
his conviction was based on evidence which was
irrelevant and not properly identified. CIScaA
The Supreme Court finds that there was no
compelling reason to reverse the decisions of the
trial and appellate courts. In this case, the
findings of the trial court that the prosecution
witnesses were more credible than those of the
defense must stand. Petitioner failed to show that
Pat. Romeo Pagilagan, in testifying against him,
was motivated by reasons other than his duty to
curb drug abuse and had any intent to falsely
impute to him such a serious crime as possession
of prohibited drugs. In the absence of such ill
motive, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of his official duty must prevail.
Furthermore, the defense of alibi set up by
petitioner deserved scant consideration. He
simply contended that he was in his house
sleeping at the time of the incident. Lastly, the
two cellophane bags of marijuana seized were
admissible in evidence because he was caught
in flagranti as a result of a buy-bust operation
conducted by police officers. However, as for the
other ten cellophane bags of marijuana found at
petitioner's residence, the same are inadmissible
in evidence considering that the said bags were
seized at petitioner's house after his arrest,
hence, do not fall under the exceptions provided
under Article III, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution. In view thereof, the instant petition
is denied and the challenged decision is affirmed
with modification as to the penalty.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF
WITNESSES; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURTS ON THE
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES DESERVE A HIGH
DEGREE OF RESPECT; CASE AT BAR. It is a
well-settled doctrine that findings of trial courts
on the credibility of witness deserve a high
degree of respect. Having observed the
deportment of witnesses during the trial, the trial
judge is in a better position to determine the
issue of credibility and, thus, his findings will not
be disturbed during appeal in the absence of any
clear and showing that he had overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance which
could have altered the conviction of the
appellants. In this case, the findings of the trial
court that the prosecution witnesses were more
credible that those of the defense must stand.
Petitioner failed to show that Pat. Pagilagan, in
testifying against him, was motivated by reasons
other than his duty to curb drug abuse and had
any intent to falsely impute to him such a serious
crime as possession of prohibited drugs. In the
absence of such ill motive, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of his official duty
must prevail.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CLAIM OF FRAME-UP, LIKE ALIBI, IS
A DEFENSE THAT HAS BEEN INVARIABLY VIEWED
BY THE COURT WITH DISFAVOR; CASE AT BAR.
The defense set up by petitioner does not
deserve any consideration. He simply contended
that he was in his house sleeping at the time of
the incident. This court has consistently held that
alibi is the weakest of all defenses; and for it to
prosper, the accused has the burden of proving
that he was not at the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission and that it was physically
impossible for him to be there. Moreover, the
"claim of 'frame-up,' like alibi, is a defense that
has been invariably viewed by the Court with
disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted but
difficult to prove, and is a common and standard
line of defense in most prosecutions arising from
violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act." No clear
and convincing evidence was presented by
petitioner to prove his defense of alibi.
3. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; WARRANTLESS
ARREST; THE MARIJUANA SEIZED FROM
PETITIONER'S HOUSE AFTER HIS ARREST IS
INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE; CASE AT BAR.
The 1987 Constitution guarantees freedom
against unreasonable searches and seizures
under Article III, Section 2 which provides: "The
right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally
by the judge 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." An exception to the said rule is a
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest of
dangerous weapons or anything which may be
used as proof of the commission of an offense. It
may extend beyond the person of the one
arrested to include the premises or surroundings
under his immediate control. In this case, the ten
cellophane bags of marijuana seized at
petitioner's house after his arrest at Pandacan
and Zamora Streets do not fall under the said
exceptions. . . . The articles seized from
petitioner during his arrest were valid under the
doctrine of search made incidental to a lawful
arrest. The warrantless search made in his house,
however, which yielded ten cellophane bags of
marijuana became unlawful since the police
officers were not armed with a search warrant at
the time. Moreover, it was beyond the reach and
control of petitioner. HTScEI
4. CRIMINAL LAW; REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425 AS
AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT 7659; IF THE
QUANTITY OF MARIJUANA INVOLVED IS LESS
THAN 750 GRAMS, THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY
RANGES FROM PRISION
CORRECTIONAL TO RECLUSION TEMPORAL; CASE
AT BAR. This Court finds petitioner Rodolfo
Espano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Article II, Section 8, in relation to Section
2 (e-L)(I) of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
Under the said provision, the penalty imposed is
six years and one day to twelve years and a fine
ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand
pesos. With the passage of Republic Act No.
7659, which took effect on December 31, 1993,
the imposable penalty shall now depend on the
quantity of drugs recovered. Under the provisions
of Republic Act No. 7659, Section 20, and as
interpreted in People v. Simon (234 SCRA 555
[1994]) and People v. Lara, (236 SCRA 291
[1994]) if the quantity of marijuana involved is
less than 750 grams, the imposable penalty
ranges from prision correccional to reclusion
temporal. Taking into consideration that
petitioner is not a habitual delinquent, the
amendatory provision is favorable to him and the
quantity of marijuana involved is less than 750
grams, the penalty imposed under Republic Act
No. 7659 should be applied.
5. ID.; ID.; PROPER PENALTY THEREOF; CASE AT
BAR. There being no mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances, the imposable
penalty shall be prision correccionalin its medium
period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the maximum penalty shall be taken from
the medium period of prision correccional, which
is two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day
to four (4) years and two (2) months, while the
minimum shall be taken from the penalty next
lower in degree, which is one (1) month and one
(1) day to six (6) months of arresto
mayor. cSDHEC
||| (Espano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120431,
[April 1, 1998], 351 PHIL 798-809)
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT
AGAINST UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE;
REQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE OF SEARCH
WARRANT. Under the Constitution "no search
warrant shall issue but 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". More emphatic and detailed is the
implementing rule of the constitutional
injunction, Section 4 of Rule 126 which provides
that the judge must before issuing the warrant
personally examine on oath or affirmation the
complainant and any witnesses he may produce
and take their depositions in writing, and attach
them to the record, in addition to any affidavits
presented to him.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INSUFFICIENCY OF AFFIDAVITS
OF COMPLAINANT AND HIS WITNESSES IN THE
CASE AT BAR. Before issuing a search warrant,
the 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 deposition is necessary in order that
the Judge may be able to properly determine the
existence or non-existence of the probable cause,
and to hold liable for perjury the person giving it
if it will be found later that his declarations are
false. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his
witnesses are thus not sufficient.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NO "DEPOSITION IN WRITING"
ATTACHED TO RECORDS OF CASE IN CASE AT
BAR. The judge's insistence that she examined
the complainants under oath has become
dubious by petitioner's claim that at the
particular time when he examined all the
relevant papers connected with the issuance of
the questioned search warrant, after he
demanded the same from the lower court since
they were not attached to the records, he did not
find any certification at the back of the joint
affidavit of the complainants. Before he filed his
motion to quash the search warrant and for the
return of the articles seized, he was furnished,
upon his request, certified true copies of the said
affidavits by the Clerk of Court but which certified
true copies do not bear any certification at the
back. Petitioner likewise claims that his xerox
copy of the said joint affidavit obtained at the
outset of this case does not show also the
certification of respondent judge. This doubt
becomes more confirmed by respondent Judge's
own admission, while insisting that she did
examine thoroughly the applicants, that "she did
not take the deposition of Mayote and Goles
because to have done so would be to hold a
judicial proceeding which will be open and
public", such that, according to her, the persons
subject of the intended raid will just disappear
and move his illegal operations somewhere else.
Could it be that the certification was made
belatedly to cure the defect of the warrant? Be
that as it may, there was no "deposition in
writing" attached to the records of the case in
palpable disregard of the statutory prohibition
heretofore quoted.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DEPOSITIONS, HOW TAKEN.
The searching questions propounded to the
applicants of the search warrant and his
witnesses must depend to a large extent upon
the discretion of the Judge just as long as the
answers establish a reasonable ground to believe
the commission of a specific offense and that the
applicant is one authorized by law, and said
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 under oath may not be in public. It
may even be held in the secrecy of his chambers.
Far more important is that the examination or
investigation is not merely routinary but one that
is thorough and elicit the required information. To
repeat, it must be under oath and must be in
writing.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; MUST BE STRICTLY COMPLIED
WITH; CASE AT BAR. Nothing can justify the
issuance of the search warrant but the fulfillment
of the legal requisites. Thus, in issuing a search
warrant the Judge must strictly comply with the
requirements of the Constitution and the
statutory provisions. In the case at bar, the
search warrant is tainted with illegality by the
failure of the Judge to conform with essential
requisites of taking the depositions in writing and
attaching them to record, rendering the search
warrant invalid.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALTHOUGH ILLEGAL, THINGS
SEIZED CANNOT BE RETURNED; CASE AT BAR.
While the search warrant is illegal, the return of
the things seized cannot be ordered. In Castro vs.
Pabalan (70 SCRA 478), it was held that the
illegality of the search warrant does not call for
the return of the things seized, the possession of
which is prohibited.
||| (Mata v. Bayona, G.R. No. 50720, [March 26,
1984], 213 PHIL 348-355)
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; IN CASE AT BAR;
FAILURE TO PRESENT POSEUR-BUYER FATAL TO
PROSECUTION'S CASE. Foremost among the
inadequacies of the prosecution is its failure to
call to the witness stand PO1 Verando Luna, the
alleged poseur-buyer. There is, thus, a total
absence of evidence to establish the purported
sale of shabu by accused-appellant to Venerando
Luna, the supposed poseur-buyer. The omission
to present the poseur-buyer casts serious doubts
that an illegal sale of a dangerous drug actually
took place. The trial court gave much weight to
the testimonies of the police members of the
buy-bust operation. However, the prosecution did
not present as witness the supposed poseur-
buyer. Such omission casts serious doubt on
appellant's guilt because without the testimony
of the poseur-buyer, there is not convincing
evidence to show that appellant sold marijuana.
The testimonies of the rest of the buy-bust
operation are hearsay in view of the fact that the
poseur-buyer was never presented at the trial.
There was even no testimony that when the
accused-appellant handed the stuff to the
poseur-buyer that the latter in turn handed the
marked money. The failure of the prosecution to
present the alleged buyer of the marijuana was a
fatal flaw in the case against the accused.(People
vs. Fulgarillas, 212 SCRA 76, 80 [1992]) The
testimony of prosecution witness PO3 Rogelio
Francisco that Veneracion Luna, the alleged
poseur-buyer, bought shabu from accused-
appellant was derived solely from what Luna
supposedly told him (pp. 19-20, tsn., December
11, 1991) and, therefore, is patently hearsay
evidence, without any evidentiary weight
whatsoever. Likewise, the statements of
prosecution witnesses Policemen Reynaldo de la
Cruz, Raymundo Untiveros, and Eduardo Novera,
Jr. as to the alleged sale of shabu are hearsay,
without weight, as all of them were not present
during the alleged sale.
2. ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; IN CASE
AT BAR, PROSECUTION'S VERSION OF "BUY-BUST"
OPERATION HIGHLY INCREDIBLE. According to
the version of the prosecution, during the alleged
buy-bust operation, accused-appellant handed
over to Veneracion Luna, the alleged poseur-
buyer, a quantity of shabu, and Luna in turn paid
accused-appellant a marked 100 bill and then
returned to the police station and informed the
raiding team that he had already bought the
shabu from accused-appellant. Thereupon, the
raiding team proceeded to the house of accused-
appellant to implement the search warrant. The
version of the prosecution is highly incredible.
The record is devoid of any reason why the police
officers did not make any attempt to arrest
accused-appellant at the time he allegedly sold
the shabu to Veneracion Luna who was
accompanied by another police officer. That was
the opportune moment to arrest accused-
appellant. The version foisted by the prosecution
upon this Court is contrary to human experience
in the ordinary course of human conduct. The
usual procedure in a buy-bust operation is for the
police officers to arrest the pusher of drugs at the
very moment he hands over the dangerous drug
to the poseur-buyer. That is the every reason why
such a police operation is called a "buy-bust"
operation. The police poseur-buyer "buys"
dangerous drugs from the pusher and "bust"
(arrests) him the moment the pusher hands over
the drug to the police officer.
3. ID.; ID.; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE; IN CASE AT BAR, PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED NOT
OVERTHROWN. The manner the police officers
conducted the subsequent and much-delayed
search is highly irregular. Upon barging into the
residence of accused-appellant, 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 (pp. 22-23, tsn,
December 11, 1991), 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 (People
vs. Tanchoco; 76 Phil. 463 [1946]; People vs.
Constante, 12 SCRA 653 [1964]; People vs.
Jara, 144 SCRA 516 [1986]). The facts of the case
do not rule out the hypothesis that accused-
appellant is innocent.
4. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT;
ACCUSED CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF CRIME NOT
CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION. Accused-
appellant cannot be convicted of possession of
the shabu contained in a canister and allegedly
seized at his house, for the charge against him
was for selling shabu with the information
alleging that the "accused, without legal
authority did Hydrocholoride." Sale is totally
different from possession. Article 1458 of the Civil
Code defines sale as a contract whereby "one of
the contracting parties obligates himself to
transfer the ownership of and to deliver a
determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor
a price certain in money or its equivalent", while
"possession is the holding of a thing or the
enjoyment of a right" as defined by Article 523 of
the Civil Code. Accused-appellant cannot be
convicted of a crime which is not charged in the
information for to do so would deny him the due
process of law (People vs. Despavellador, 2 SCRA
205 [1961];People vs. Mori, 55 SCRA 382 [1974]).
5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES; EXCLUSION IN EVIDENCE OF
ILLEGALLY SEIZED ARTICLES. The search
warrant implemented by the raiding party
authorized only the search and seizure of ".. the
described quantity of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride commonly known as shabu and its
paraphernalia" (Exh. O, p. 50, original record).
Thus, the raiding party was authorized to seize
only shabu and paraphernalia for the use thereof
and no other. 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. Thus, the search warrant was
no authority for the police officers to seize the
firearm which was not mentioned, much less
described with particularly, in the search warrant.
Neither may it be maintained that the gun was
seized in the course of an arrest, for as earlier
observed, accused-appellant's arrest was far
from regular and legal. Said firearm, having been
illegally seized, the same is not admissible in
evidence (Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383
[1967]). The Constitution expressly ordains the
exclusion in evidence of illegally seized articles.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.(Section 3 [2], Article
III, Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines).With the exclusion in evidence of the
illegally seized firearm, there is, therefore, a total
absence of evidence to support the charge of
illegal possession of firearm, against accused-
appellant. The same way may be said of the
charge of illegal possession of ammunition.
||| (People v. Del Rosario y Lopez, G.R. No.
109633, [July 20, 1994])