Roan v.

Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687

Roans house was searched by virtue of a search warrant and the said search was performed by
military authorities. During their search, the authorities found a Colt Magnum revolver and 18
live bullets which they confiscated and served as bases for the charge of illegal possession of
firearms. However, the application of said search warrant was based on the accounts of two
witnesses. The applicant did not have personal knowledge of said firearm.

Facts:
1. A search warrant was issued by respondent judge (Gonzales) on May 10, 1984. Application for
the said search warrant was personally led by PC Capt. Mauro Quillosa. Together with Quillosa
were two witnesses (Esmael Morada and Jesusohilida), who presented to respondent judge their
respective afidavits. The application was not yet subscribed and sworn to, as such respondent
Judge proceeded to examine Quillosa on the contents of the application to ascertain if he knew
and understood the same. Afterwards, Quillosa subscribed and swore the said application before
respondent.

2. Petitioners (Joseno Roan) house was searched two days after the issuance of the search
warrant. The said search was performed by military authorities. Despite none of the articles listed
in the warrant was discovered, the officers who conducted the search found one Colt Magnum
revolver and 18 live bullets which they confiscated. The said items served as bases for the charge
of illegal possession of firearms against the petitioner.

Issue: Whether or not a search warrant be annulled on the ground that it violates the privacy of
one persons house

Ruling/Decision:
1. To be valid, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause to be determined by the
judge or some authorized officer after examining the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce. There must be a specific description of the place to be searched and the things to be
seized, to prevent arbitrary and indiscriminate use of the warrant. Probable cause, as described
by Judge Escolin in Burgos v. Chief of Staff, refers to such facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and
that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. The
probable cause must refer to only one specific offense.

2. The applicant (Capt. Quillosa) 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.

3.It is axiomatic that the magistrate must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary or pro-
forma, if the claimed probable cause is to be established. The examining magistrate must not
simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and
justification of the application