014.

BURGOS vs CHIEF OF STAFF

December 26, 1984
Escolin, J.
Mica Maurinne M. Adao

Topic: Search warrants maliciously obtained & abuse in the service of those legally obtained (Art. 129)
Rule 126, ROC

Petitioners: Jose Burgos, Sr., Jose Burgos, Jr., Bayani Soriano and J. Burgos Media Services, Inc.
Respondents: The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of The Philippines; The Chief, Philippine Constabulary; The Chief Legal Officer,
Presidential Security Command, The Judge Advocate General, Et Al.

Short version: Two search warrants were issued by the respondent judge under which the business addresses of
Metropolitan Mail and We Forum newspapers were searched. Office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor
vehicles and other articles used in printing, publication and distribution of said newspapers as well as numerous newspapers,
documents, books and other forms of literature were seized. Petitioners questioned the validity of the search warrants issued.
SC declared the warrants null and void. The basis for seeking such warrant which is the possession and control of printing
materials use to commit subversive actions are mere conclusions of law and do not satisfy the requirement of probable cause
as required by the Constitution. The subversive articles referred to were not even identified. Moreover, the warrants are
illegal because they are in the nature of general warrants. The description of the printing and office equipments are too
general and do not comply with the requirement of particular description of the things to be seized.

FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari prohibition and mandamus with prelim injunction, assailing the validity of 2 search warrants
issued by respondent Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano, under which the premises known as No. 19, Road 3, Project 6, QC, and 784 Units
C&D, RMS Bldg, Quezon Avenue, known to be business addresses of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers,
were searched, and office machineries, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles alleged to be in possession
and control of petitioner Jose Burgos Jr, publisher, editor of “We Forum” newspaper, were seized.

Petitioners alleged the search warrants to be null and void because of the following reasons: *Supreme Court’s ruling on each
issues raised are inside the parentheses.
o Judge’s failure to conduct and examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses (moot and
academic as petitioners themselves conceded that an examination was indeed conducted)
o Search warrants were used to search two distinct places which were actually one and the same place (typographical
error)
o Warrants were directed to Burgos, Jr. alone but articles belonging to co-petitioners Burgos, Sr., Bayani Soriano and the
J. Burgos Media Services Inc. (Sec. 2, Rule 126 does not require property to seized be owned by the person against
whom the search warrant is directed)
o Real properties were seized (machineries, although bolted to the ground remain movable property because
petitioners do not own the land/building where they are located)
o The search warrant was issued upon application of Col. Rolando Abadilla, Intelligence Officer of the P.C. Metrocom
with the Joint Affidavit of two other members. These documents could not have provided sufficient basis for the
finding of probable cause

Respondents wanted the Court to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners did not seek the quashal of the search
warrants before the judge. The SC disregarded this procedural flaw, saying that the SC has the power to suspend its own rules
when the purposes of justice require it. The delay in filing was also explained, citing the environment in the Philippines during
this time (Marcos Era), where this case was filed half a year after the premises were raided. Moreover, the court also said that
the extrajudicial efforts by the petitioners evidently negate the presumption that they had abandoned their right to the
possession of seized property (laches). The contention that petitioner is estopped from challenging the validity of the search
warrants because he used it in evidence is wrong, because the articles belong to him and he can do anything he wants to do
with them.

ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrants issued were valid?

RULING: NO.
RATIO:Although petitioner’s themselves conceded that there was indeed an examination conducted by respondent judge, and
that indeed there were 2 separate warrants issued for the 2 addresses, still the warrants do not conform to the standard
needed for their validity.

In the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity, it has
been held “that the executing officer’s prior knowledge as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant.”

The court also disposed of the assertion that the warrants were directed against Burgos but the articles belonging to his co-
petitioner’s, in that in Sec 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, personal properties that may be seized under a search warrant (a)
property subject of the offenses; (b) property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; (c) Property
used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. This rule does not require that the property to be seized
should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. Moreover, (b) mentioned necessarily means that
stolen property DOES NOT belong to the person in possession of the property.

There is also an assertion that the property taken were real properties, but the court cited Art 415(5) of NCC, and Davao
Sawmill v Castillo, where movables are immobilized if placed by the owner of the tenement, but in this case the petitioners do
not claim to be the owners of the land/ building on which the machineries were placed. In this case, while the machineries
were bolted to the ground, they remain movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant.

Article IV of 1973 constitution provides that “sec. 3… and no search warrant of arrest 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
persons or things to be seized.”

Probable cause for a search is 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.

If the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper in connection with the publication of subversive materials,
the application and supporting affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive
material has published or is intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice. Thus the broad statement in Col.
Abadilla’s application that petitioner “is in possession or has in his control printing equipment and other paraphernalia, news
publications and other documents which were used and are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense
of subversion punishable under PD 885, as amended…” is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirements of
probable cause.

The constitution requires 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.

Moreover, the warrants are illegal because they are in the nature of general warrants. The articles described were “ all printing
equipment, paraphernalia… connected in the printing of the “WE FORUM” newspaper and all documents, communication,
letters… related to the “WE FORUM” newspaper”. This is considered as too general, and not able to comply with the
constitutional requirement.

As a consequence of the seizure of the articles in question, the premises were padlocked. This constituted a previous restraint
or censorship to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental law, and constitutes a virtual denial of
petitioner’s freedom to express themselves in print.The continued sealing of the printing machines were grounded on
sequestration under Sec 8 of PD 885, but in one issue of Daily Express, Pres Marcos himself denied the request of military
authorities to sequester the property, as confirmed by the Foreign Minister Carlos P Romulo.

The Petition is GRANTED. Search warrants are declared null and void.