You are on page 1of 1

Josefino S. Roan vs. Honorable Romulo T.

Gonzales

GR No. 71410, November 25, 1986

Cruz, J.;

FACTS:

A search warrant was issued by respondent judge Romulo T. Gonzales on May 10, 1984. The application
for the said search warrant was personally filed by PC Capt. Mauro Quillosa. Together with Quillosa were two
witnesses, Esmael Morada and Jesus Tohilida, who presented to respondent judge their respective affidavits taken
by police investigator Pat. Josue V. Lining. 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 judge.

Roan’s house was searched two days after the issuance of the search warrant. The said search was
conducted by military authorities. Despite none of the articles listed in the warrant was discovered, the officers who
performed 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 the search warrant be annulled on the ground that it violates the privacy of one person’s house

HELD:

YES. 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 arein the place sought to be searched.” The
probable cause must refer to only one specific offense.
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. 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.
Prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the search is valid. In this case, it was not because
there was no valid search warrant and absent of such warrant, the right thereto was not validly waived by the
petitioner. In short, the military officers who entered the petitioner’s premises had no right to be there and therefore
had no right to seize the pistol and bullets.

You might also like