1

Alvero vs. Dizon [GR L-342, 4 May 1946] En Banc, de Joya (J): 4 concur, 4 acting justices concur Fac s! On 12 February 1945, while the battle for Manila was raging, soldiers of the United States Army, a om!anied by men of Fili!ino "uerrilla For es, !la ed Aurelio S# Al$ero under arrest, ha$ing been sus!e ted of ollaboration with the enemy, and sei%ed and too& ertain !a!ers from his house in 'asay, (i%al# On or about 4 O tober 1945, Al$ero was a used of treason, in riminal ase ) of the 'eo!le*s +ourt, after whi h, on 1 -e ember 1945, he filed a !etition, demanding the return of the !a!ers allegedly sei%ed and ta&en from his house# Al$ero also filed a !etition for bail, at the hearing of whi h the !rose ution !resented ertain !a!ers and do uments, whi h were admitted as !art of its e$iden e, and said !etition was denied# At the trial of the ase on the merits, the !rose ution again !resented said !a!ers and do uments, whi h were admitted as !art of its e$iden e, and were mar&ed as e.hibits# On 2/ February 194/, the 0udges issued an order denying the !etition for the return of the do uments, and admitted as om!etent e$iden e the do uments !resented by the !rose ution# On the same date that said order was issued, denying the !etition for the return of said do uments, Al$ero as&ed for the re onsideration of said order, whi h was also denied# Al$ero filed a !etition for ertiorari with in0un tion with the Su!reme +ourt# "ss#e! 1hether the do uments sei%ed by United States Army !ersonnel at Al$ero*s home an be used as e$iden e against the latter# $el%! 2he right of offi ers and men of the United States Army to arrest Al$ero, as a ollaborationist sus!e t, and to sei%e his !ersonal !a!ers, without any sear h warrant, in the %one of military o!erations, is un3uestionable, under the !ro$isions of arti le 4, +ha!ter 44, Se tion 4, of the (egulations relati$e to the 5aws and +ustoms of 1ar on 5and of the 6ague +on$entions of 1978, authori%ing the sei%ure of military !a!ers in the !ossession of !risoners of war, and also under the !ro lamation, dated 29 -e ember 1944, issued by "en# -ouglas Ma Arthur, as +ommander in +hief of the United States Army, de laring his !ur!ose to remo$e ertain iti%ens of the 'hili!!ines, who had $oluntarily gi$en aid and omfort to the enemy, in $iolation of the allegian e due the "o$ernments of the United States and the +ommonwealth of the 'hili!!ines, when a!!rehended, from any !osition of !oliti al and e onomi influen e in the 'hili!!ines and to hold them in restraint for the duration of the war# 2he !ur!ose of the onstitutional !ro$isions against unlawful

sear hes and sei%ures is to !re$ent $iolations of !ri$ate se urity in !erson and !ro!erty, and unlawful in$asions of the san tity of the home, by offi ers of the law a ting under legislati$e or 0udi ial san tion, and to gi$e remedy against su h usur!ations when attem!ted# 9ut it does not !rohibit the "o$ernment from ta&ing ad$antage of unlawful sear hes made by a !ri$ate !erson or under authority of state law# 6erein, as the soldiers of the United States Army, that too& and sei%ed ertain !a!ers and do uments from the residen e of Al$ero, were not a ting as agents or on behalf of the "o$ernment of the +ommonwealth of the 'hili!!ines, and that those !a!ers and do uments ame into the !ossession of the authorities of the +ommonwealth "o$ernment, through the Offi e of the +4+ of the United States Army in Manila, the use and !resentation of said !a!ers and do uments, as e$iden e for the !rose ution against Al$ero, at the trial of his ase for treason, before the 'eo!le*s +ourt, annot now be legally atta &ed, on the ground of unlawful or unreasonable sear hes and sei%ures, or on any other onstitutional ground, as de lared by the Su!reme +ourt of the United States in similar ases# :See 9urdeau $s# M -owell, 25/ U# S#, 4/5, "ambino $s# United States, 285 U# S#, )17#; &eo'le vs. An%re Mar i [GR (1)61, 1( *an#ary 1991] Third Division, Bidin (J): 3 concur Fac s! On 14 August 19<8, Andre Marti and his ommon=law wife, Shirley (eyes, went to the booth of the Manila 'a &ing and >.!ort Forwarders in the 'istang 'ili!ino +om!le., >rmita, Manila, arrying with them 4 gift= wra!!ed !a &ages# Anita (eyes :the !ro!rietress and no relation to Shirley (eyes; attended to them# Marti informed Anita (eyes that he was sending the !a &ages to a friend in ?uri h, Swit%erland# Marti filled u! the ontra t ne essary for the transa tion, writing therein his name, !ass!ort number, the date of shi!ment and the name and address of the onsignee, namely, @1A52>( F4>(?, Matta &etr 44, <752 ?uri h, Swit%erland#A Anita (eyes did not ins!e t the !a &ages as Marti refused, who assured the former that the !a &ages sim!ly ontained boo&s, igars, and glo$es and were gifts to his friend in ?uri h# 4n $iew of Marti*s re!resentation, the 4 !a &ages were then !la ed inside a brown orrugated bo., with styro=foam !la ed at the bottom and on to! of the !a &ages, and sealed with mas&ing ta!e# 9efore deli$ery of Marti*s bo. to the 9ureau of +ustoms andBor 9ureau of 'osts, Mr# Cob (eyes :!ro!rietor; and husband of Anita :(eyes;, following standard o!erating !ro edure, o!ened the bo.es for final ins!e tion, where a !e uliar odor emitted therefrom# Cob !ulled out a ello!hane wra!!er !rotruding from the

o!ening of one of the glo$es, and too& se$eral grams of the ontents thereof# Cob (eyes forthwith !re!ared a letter re!orting the shi!ment to the D94 and re3uesting a laboratory e.amination of the sam!les he e.tra ted from the ello!hane wra!!er# At the Dar oti s Se tion of the Dational 9ureau of 4n$estigation :D94;, the bo. ontaining Marti*s !a &ages was o!ened, yielding dried mari0uana lea$es, or a&e=li&e :bri &s; dried mari0uana lea$es# 2he D94 agents made an in$entory and too& harge of the bo. and of the ontents thereof, after signing a @(e ei!tA a &nowledging ustody of the said effe ts# 2hereu!on, the D94 agents tried to lo ate Marti but to no a$ail, inasmu h as the latter*s stated address was the Manila +entral 'ost Offi e# 2hereafter, an 4nformation was filed against Marti for $iolation of (A /425, otherwise &nown as the -angerous -rugs A t# After trial, the S!e ial +riminal +ourt of Manila :(egional 2rial +ourt, 9ran h E54E; rendered the de ision, on$i ting Marti of $iolation of Se tion 21 :b;, Arti le 4F in relation to Se tion 4, Arti le 11 and Se tion 2 :e;:i;, Arti le 1 of (e!ubli A t /425, as amended, otherwise &nown as the -angerous -rugs A t# Marti a!!ealed# "ss#e! 1hether an a t of a !ri$ate indi$idual, allegedly in $iolation of the a used*s onstitutional rights, be in$o&ed against the State# $el%! 4n the absen e of go$ernmental interferen e, the liberties guaranteed by the +onstitution annot be in$o&ed against the State# 2he ontraband herein, ha$ing ome into !ossession of the "o$ernment without the latter transgressing the a used*s rights against unreasonable sear h and sei%ure, the +ourt sees no ogent reason why the same should not be admitted against him in the !rose ution of the offense harged# 2he mere !resen e of the D94 agents did not on$ert the reasonable sear h effe ted by (eyes into a warrantless sear h and sei%ure !ros ribed by the +onstitution# Merely to obser$e and loo& at that whi h is in !lain sight is not a sear h# 6a$ing obser$ed that whi h is o!en, where no tres!ass has been ommitted in aid thereof, is not sear h# 1here the ontraband arti les are identified without a tres!ass on the !art of the arresting offi er, there is not the sear h that is !rohibited by the onstitution# 2he onstitutional !ros ri!tion against unlawful sear hes and sei%ures therefore a!!lies as a restraint dire ted only against the go$ernment and its agen ies tas&ed with the enfor ement of the law# 2hus, it ould only be in$o&ed against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable e.er ise of !ower is im!osed# 4f the sear h is made u!on the re3uest of law enfor ers, a warrant must generally be first se ured if it is to !ass the test of onstitutionality# 6owe$er, if the sear h is

made at the behest or initiati$e of the !ro!rietor of a !ri$ate establishment for its own and !ri$ate !ur!oses, as in the ase at bar, and without the inter$ention of !oli e authorities, the right against unreasonable sear h and sei%ure annot be in$o&ed for only the a t of !ri$ate indi$idual, not the law enfor ers, is in$ol$ed# 4n sum, the !rote tion against unreasonable sear hes and sei%ures annot be e.tended to a ts ommitted by !ri$ate indi$iduals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the go$ernment# +ac,e - .o. /&,il.0 "nc. vs. R#iz [GR L32419, 22 Fe3r#ary 1921] En Banc, Villamor (J): concur, ! "iled a se#arate concurring o#inion to $hich ! concurs, ! concurs in result Fac s! On 24 February 1987, Misael '# Fera, +ommissioner of 4nternal (e$enue, wrote a letter addressed to Cudge Fi$en io M# (ui% re3uesting the issuan e of a sear h warrant against 9a he G +o# :'hil#;, 4n # and Frederi & ># Seggerman for $iolation of Se tion 4/:a; of the Dational 4nternal (e$enue +ode :D4(+;, in relation to all other !ertinent !ro$isions thereof, !arti ularly Se tions 5), 82, 8), 27< and 279, and authori%ing (e$enue >.aminer (odolfo de 5eon to ma&e and file the a!!li ation for sear h warrant whi h was atta hed to the letter# 4n the afternoon of the following day, -e 5eon and his witness, Arturo 5ogronio, went to the +ourt of First 4nstan e :+F4; of (i%al# 2hey brought with them the following !a!ersH Fera*s letter= re3uest, an a!!li ation for sear h warrant already filled u! but still unsigned by -e 5eon, an affida$it of 5ogronio subs ribed before -e 5eon, a de!osition in !rinted form of 5ogronio already a om!lished and signed by him but not yet subs ribed, and a sear h warrant already a om!lished but still unsigned by Cudge# At that time the Cudge was hearing a ertain ase, so, by means of a note, he instru ted his -e!uty +ler& of +ourt to ta&e the de!ositions of -e 5eon and 5ogronio# After the session had ad0ourned, the Cudge was informed that the de!ositions had already been ta&en# 2he stenogra!her, u!on re3uest of the Cudge, read to him her stenogra!hi notes, and thereafter, the Cudge as&ed 5ogronio to ta&e the oath and warned him that if his de!osition was found to be false and without legal basis, he ould be harged for !er0ury# 2he Cudge signed de 5eon*s a!!li ation for sear h warrant and 5ogronio*s de!osition# Sear h 1arrant 2=M=87 was then signed by Cudge and a ordingly issued# ) days later :a Saturday;, the 94( agents ser$ed the sear h warrant to the or!oration and Seggerman at the offi es of the or!oration on Ayala A$enue, Ma&ati, (i%al# 2he or!oration*s lawyers !rotested the sear h on the ground that no formal om!laint or trans ri!t of testimony was atta hed to the

warrant# 2he agents ne$ertheless !ro eeded with their sear h whi h yielded / bo.es of do uments# On ) Mar h 1987, the or!oration and Seggerman filed a !etition with the +ourt of First 4nstan e :+F4; of (i%al !raying that the sear h warrant be 3uashed, dissol$ed or re alled, that !reliminary !rohibitory and mandatory writs of in0un tion be issued, that the sear h warrant be de lared null and $oid, and that Fera, 5ogronio, de 5eon, et# al#, be ordered to !ay the or!oration and Seggerman, 0ointly and se$erally, damages and attorney*s fees# After hearing and on 29 Culy 1987, the ourt issued an order dismissing the !etition for dissolution of the sear h warrant# 4n the meantime, or on 1/ A!ril 1987, the 9ureau of 4nternal (e$enue made ta. assessments on the or!oration in the total sum of '2,594,829#98, !artly, if not entirely, based on the do uments thus sei%ed# 2he or!oration and Seggerman filed an a tion for ertiorari, !rohibition, and mandamus# "ss#e! 1hether the or!oration has the right to ontest the legality of the sei%ure of do uments from its offi e# $el%! 2he legality of a sei%ure an be ontested only by the !arty whose rights ha$e been im!aired thereby, and that the ob0e tion to an unlawful sear h and sei%ure is !urely !ersonal and annot be a$ailed of by third !arties# 4n Stonehill, et al# $s# -io&no, et al# :"( 5=19557, 19 Cune 19/8, 27 S+(A )<); the Su!reme +ourt im!liedly re ogni%ed the right of a or!oration to ob0e t against unreasonable sear hes and sei%ures, holding that the or!orations ha$e their res!e ti$e !ersonalities, se!arate and distin t from the !ersonality of the or!orate offi ers, regardless of the amount of shares of sto & or the interest of ea h of them in said or!orations, whate$er, the offi es they hold therein may be, and that the or!orate offi ers therefore may not $alidly ob0e t to the use in e$iden e against them of the do uments, !a!ers and things sei%ed from the offi es and !remises of the or!orations, sin e the right to ob0e t to the admission of said !a!ers in e$iden e belongs e. lusi$ely to the or!orations, to whom the sei%ed effe ts belong, and may not be in$o&ed by the or!orate offi ers in !ro eedings against them in their indi$idual a!a ity# 2he distin tion between the Stonehill ase and the !resent ase is thatH in the former ase, only the offi ers of the $arious or!orations in whose offi es do uments, !a!ers and effe ts were sear hed and sei%ed were the !etitioners, while in the latter, the or!oration to whom the sei%ed do uments belong, and whose rights ha$e thereby been im!aired, is itself a !etitioner# On that s ore, the or!oration herein stands on a different footing from the or!orations in Stonehill# Moreo$er, herein, the sear h warrant

was $oid inasmu h as First, there was no !ersonal e.amination ondu ted by the Cudge of the om!lainant :-e 5eon; and his witness :5ogronio;# 2he Cudge did not as& either of the two any 3uestion the answer to whi h ould !ossibly be the basis for determining whether or not there was !robable ause against 9a he G +o# and Seggerman# 2he !arti i!ation of the Cudge in the !ro eedings whi h led to the issuan e of Sear h 1arrant 2=M=87 was thus limited to listening to the stenogra!her*s readings of her notes, to a few words of warning against the ommission of !er0ury, and to administering the oath to the om!lainant and his witness# 2his annot be onsider a !ersonal e.amination# Se ond, the sear h warrant was issued for more than one s!e ifi offense# 2he sear h warrant was issued for at least 4 distin t offenses under the 2a. +ode# 2he first is the $iolation of Se tion 4/:a;, Se tion 82 and Se tion 8) :the filing of in ome ta. returns;, whi h are interrelated# 2he se ond is the $iolation of Se tion 5) :withholding of in ome ta.es at sour e;# 2he third is the $iolation of Se tion 27< :unlawful !ursuit of business or o u!ation;, and the fourth is the $iolation of Se tion 279 :failure to ma&e a return of re ei!ts, sales, business or gross $alue of out!ut a tually remo$ed or to !ay the ta. due thereon;# >$en in their lassifi ation the / !ro$isions are embra ed in 2 different titlesH Se tions 4/:a;, 5), 82 and 8) are under 2itle 44 :4n ome 2a.;, while Se tions 27< and 279 are under 2itle F :'ri$ilege 2a. on 9usiness and O u!ation;# 5astly, the sear h warrant does not !arti ularly des ribe the things to be sei%ed# Sear h 1arrant Do# 2=M=87 tends to defeat the ma0or ob0e ti$e of the 9ill of (ights, i#e#, the elimination of general warrants, for the language used therein is so all=embra ing as to in lude all on ei$able re ords of the or!oration, whi h, if sei%ed, ould !ossibly render its business ino!erati$e# 2hus, Sear h 1arrant 2=M=87 is null and $oid# 4 one,ill vs. Dio5no [GR L-19))1, 19 *#ne 1962] En Banc, %once#cion (%J): & concur Fac s! U!on a!!li ation of the offi ers of the go$ernment, S!e ial 'rose utors 'edro -# +en%on, >fren 4# 'lana and Manuel Fillareal Cr# and Assistant Fis al Manases "# (eyes, Cudge Amado (oan :Muni i!al +ourt of Manila;, Cudge (oman +ansino :Muni i!al +ourt of Manila;, Cudge 6ermogenes +aluag :+ourt of First 4nstan e of (i%al=Iue%on +ity 9ran h;, and Cudge -amian Cimene% :Muni i!al +ourt of Iue%on +ity; issued, on different dates, a total of 42 sear h warrants against 6arry S# Stonehill, (obert '# 9roo&s, 6Cohn C# 9roo&s, and Jarl 9e &, andBor the or!orations of whi h they were offi ers, dire ted to any !ea e offi er, to sear h the said !ersons andBor the !remises of

their offi es, warehouses andBor residen es, and to sei%e and ta&e !ossession of the following !ersonal !ro!erty to witH @9oo&s of a ounts, finan ial re ords, $ou hers, orres!onden e, re ei!ts, ledgers, 0ournals, !ortfolios, redit 0ournals, ty!ewriters, and other do uments andBor !a!ers showing all business transa tions in luding disbursements re ei!ts, balan e sheets and !rofit and loss statements and 9obbins : igarette wra!!ers;A as @the sub0e t of the offense, stolen or embe%%led and !ro eeds or fruits of the offense,A or @used or intended to be used as the means of ommitting the offense,A whi h is des ribed in the a!!li ations ad$erted to abo$e as @$iolation of +entral 9an& 5aws, 2ariff and +ustoms 5aws, 4nternal (e$enue :+ode; and the (e$ised 'enal +ode#A Alleging that the sear h warrants are null and $oid, as ontra$ening the +onstitution and the (ules of +ourt, Stonehill, et# al# filed with the Su!reme +ourt the original a tion for ertiorari, !rohibition, mandamus and in0un tion# On 22 Mar h 19/2, the Su!reme +ourt issued the writ of !reliminary in0un tion !rayed for in the !etition# 6owe$er, by resolution dated 29 Cune 19/2, the writ was !artially lifted or dissol$ed, insofar as the !a!ers, do uments and things sei%ed from the offi es of the or!orations are on erned, but, the in0un tion was maintained as regards the !a!ers, do uments and things found and sei%ed in the residen es of Stonehill, et# al# "ss#e! 1hether Stonehill, et# al# an assail the legality of the ontested warrants that allowed sei%ure of do uments, !a!ers and other effe ts in the or!orate offi es, and other !la es besides their residen es# $el%! Stonehill, et# al# maintained that the sear h warrants are in the nature of general warrants and that, a ordingly, the sei%ures effe ted u!on the authority thereof are null and $oid# Do warrant shall issue but u!on !robable ause, to be determined by the 0udge in the manner set forth in said !ro$ision, and the warrant shall !arti ularly des ribe the things to be sei%ed# Done of these re3uirements has been om!lied with in the ontested warrants# 2he gra$e $iolation of the +onstitution made in the a!!li ation for the ontested sear h warrants was om!ounded by the des ri!tion therein made of the effe ts to be sear hed for and sei%ed# 2he warrants authori%ed the sear h for and sei%ure of re ords !ertaining to all business transa tions of Stonehill, et# al#, regardless of whether the transa tions were legal or illegal# 2he warrants san tioned the sei%ure of all re ords of the or!orate offi ers and the or!orations, whate$er their nature, thus o!enly ontra$ening the e.!li it ommand of our 9ill of (ights K that the things to be sei%ed be !arti ularly des ribed K as well as tending to defeat its ma0or ob0e ti$eH the elimination of

general warrants# 6owe$er, the do uments, !a!ers, and things sei%ed under the alleged authority of the warrants in 3uestion may be s!lit into :2; ma0or grou!s, namelyH :a; those found and sei%ed in the offi es of the or!orations and :b; those found sei%ed in the residen es of Stonehill, et# al# As regards the first grou!, Stonehill, et# al# ha$e no ause of a tion to assail the legality of the ontested warrants and of the sei%ures made in !ursuan e thereof, for the sim!le reason that said or!orations ha$e their res!e ti$e !ersonalities, se!arate and distin t from the !ersonality of Stonehill, et# al#, regardless of the amount of shares of sto & or of the interest of ea h of them in said or!orations, and whate$er the offi es they hold therein may be# 4ndeed, it is well settled that the legality of a sei%ure an be ontested only by the !arty whose rights ha$e been im!aired thereby, and that the ob0e tion to an unlawful sear h and sei%ure is !urely !ersonal and annot be a$ailed of by third !arties# +onse3uently, Stonehill, et# al# may not $alidly ob0e t to the use in e$iden e against them of the do uments, !a!ers and things sei%ed from the offi es and !remises of the or!orations ad$erted to abo$e, sin e the right to ob0e t to the admission of said !a!ers in e$iden e belongs e. lusi$ely to the or!orations, to whom the sei%ed effe ts belong, and may not be in$o&ed by the or!orate offi ers in !ro eedings against them in their indi$idual a!a ity# 1ith res!e t to the do uments, !a!ers and things sei%ed in the residen es of Stonehill, et# al#, the 29 Cune 19/2 (esolution of the Su!reme +ourt, denying the lifting of the writ of !reliminary in0un tion !re$iously issued by the +ourt on the do uments, !a!ers and things sei%ed in the residen es, in effe t, restrained the !rose utors from using them in e$iden e against Stonehill, et# al# 2hus, the +ourt held that the warrants for the sear h of ) residen es are null and $oid, that the sear hes and sei%ures therein made are illegal, that the writ of !reliminary in0un tion heretofore issued, in onne tion with the do uments, !a!ers and other effe ts thus sei%ed in said residen es is made !ermanent, that the writs !rayed for are granted, insofar as the do uments, !a!ers and other effe ts so sei%ed in the residen es are on erned, and that the !etition herein is dismissed and the writs !rayed for denied, as regards the do uments, !a!ers and other effe ts sei%ed in the 29 !la es, offi es and other !remises#

6#rc,er vs. 4 an7or% Daily [436 84 )42, 31 May 192(] 'hite (J): 3 concur, ! "iled a se#arate

concurring o#inion, ( "iled se#arate dissenting o#inions, to $hich ! joined, ! too) no #art* Fac s! On 9 A!ril 1981, offi ers of the 'alo Alto 'oli e -e!artment and of the Santa +lara +ounty Sheriff*s -e!artment res!onded to a all from the dire tor of the Stanford Uni$ersity 6os!ital re3uesting the remo$al of a large grou! of demonstrators who had sei%ed the hos!ital*s administrati$e offi es and o u!ied them sin e the !re$ious afternoon# After se$eral futile efforts to !ersuade the demonstrators to lea$e !ea efully, more drasti measures were em!loyed# 2he !oli e hose to for e their way in at the west end of the orridor# As they did so, a grou! of demonstrators emerged through the doors at the east end and, armed with sti &s and lubs, atta &ed the grou! of nine !oli e offi ers stationed there# All nine were in0ured# 2he offi ers themsel$es were able to identify only two of their assailants, but one of them did see at least one !erson !hotogra!hing the assault at the east doors# On A!ril 11 :Sunday;, a s!e ial edition of the Stanford -aily :-aily;, a student news!a!er !ublished at Stanford Uni$ersity, arried arti les and !hotogra!hs de$oted to the hos!ital !rotest and the $iolent lash between demonstrators and !oli e# 2he !hotogra!hs arried the byline of a -aily staff member and indi ated that he had been at the east end of the hos!ital hallway where he ould ha$e !hotogra!hed the assault on the 9 offi ers# 2he ne.t day, the Santa +lara +ounty -istri t Attorney*s Offi e se ured a warrant from the Muni i!al +ourt for an immediate sear h of the -aily*s offi es for negati$es, film, and !i tures showing the e$ents and o urren es at the hos!ital on the e$ening of A!ril 9# 2he warrant issued on a finding of @0ust, !robable and reasonable ause for belie$ing thatH Degati$es and !hotogra!hs and films, e$iden e material and rele$ant to the identity of the !er!etrators of felonies, to wit, 9attery on a 'ea e Offi er, and Assault with -eadly 1ea!on, will be lo ated Lon the !remises of the -ailyM#A 2he warrant affida$it ontained no allegation or indi ation that members of the -aily staff were in any way in$ol$ed in unlawful a ts at the hos!ital# 2he sear h !ursuant to the warrant was ondu ted later that day by 4 !oli e offi ers and too& !la e in the !resen e of some members of the -aily staff# 2he -aily*s !hotogra!hi laboratories, filing abinets, des&s, and waste!a!er bas&ets were sear hed# 5o &ed drawers and rooms were not o!ened# 2he sear h re$ealed only the !hotogra!hs that had already been !ublished on A!ril 11, and no materials were remo$ed from the -aily*s offi e# A month later the -aily and $arious members of its staff brought a i$il a tion in the United States -istri t +ourt for the Dorthern -istri t of +alifornia see&ing de laratory and in0un ti$e relief under 42 U#S#+# 19<) against the !oli e offi ers who ondu ted

the sear h, the hief of !oli e, the distri t attorney and one of his de!uties, and the 0udge who had issued the warrant# 2he om!laint alleged that the sear h of the -aily*s offi e had de!ri$ed res!ondents under olor of state law of rights se ured to them by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States +onstitution# 2he -istri t +ourt denied the re3uest for an in0un tion but, on the news!a!er staff*s motion for summary 0udgment, granted de laratory relief# 2he ourt did not 3uestion the e.isten e of !robable ause to belie$e that a rime had been ommitted and to belie$e that rele$ant e$iden e would be found on the -aily*s !remises# 4t held, howe$er, that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments forbade the issuan e of a warrant to sear h for materials in !ossession of one not sus!e ted of rime unless there is !robable ause to belie$e, based on fa ts !resented in a sworn affida$it, that a sub!oena du es te um would be im!ra ti able# 2he -istri t +ourt further held that where the inno ent ob0e t of the sear h is a news!a!er, First Amendment interests are also in$ol$ed and that su h a sear h is onstitutionally !ermissible @only in the rare ir umstan e where there is a lear showing that :1; im!ortant materials will be destroyed or remo$ed from the 0urisdi tion, and :2; a restraining order would be futile#A Sin e these !re onditions to a $alid warrant had not been satisfied, the sear h of the -aily*s offi es was de lared to ha$e been illegal# 2he +ourt of A!!eals affirmed !er uriam, ado!ting the o!inion of the -istri t +ourt# ?ur her, et# al# filed a !etition for ertiorari# "ss#e! 1hether the Fourth Amendment is to be onstrued and a!!lied to the @third !artyA sear h, the re urring situation where state authorities ha$e !robable ause to belie$e that fruits, instrumentalities, or other e$iden e of rime is lo ated on identified !ro!erty but do not then ha$e !robable ause to belie$e that the owner or !ossessor of the !ro!erty is himself im!li ated in the rime that has o urred or is o urring# $el%! First, a State is not !re$ented by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments from issuing a warrant to sear h for e$iden e sim!ly be ause the owner or !ossessor of the !la e to be sear hed is not reasonably sus!e ted of riminal in$ol$ement# 2he riti al element in a reasonable sear h is not that the !ro!erty owner is sus!e ted of rime but that there is reasonable ause to belie$e that the @thingsA to be sear hed for and sei%ed are lo ated on the !ro!erty to whi h entry is sought# Se ond, the -istri t +ourt*s new rule denying sear h warrants against third !arties and insisting on sub!oenas would undermine law enfor ement efforts sin e sear h warrants are often used

early in an in$estigation before all the !er!etrators of a rime ha$e been identified, and the seemingly blameless third !arty may be im!li ated# 2he delay in em!loying a sub!oena du es te um ould easily result in disa!!earan e of the e$iden e# Dor would the ause of !ri$a y be ser$ed sin e sear h warrants are more diffi ult to obtain than sub!oenas# 5astly, !ro!erly administered, the !re onditions for a sear h warrant :!robable ause, s!e ifi ity with res!e t to the !la e to be sear hed and the things to be sei%ed, and o$erall reasonableness;, whi h must be a!!lied with !arti ular e.a titude when First Amendment interests would be endangered by the sear h, are ade3uate safeguards against the interferen e with the !ress* ability to gather, analy%e, and disseminate news that res!ondents laim would ensue from use of warrants for third=!arty sear hes of news!a!er offi es# 9ilson vs. Layne [)26 84 613, 24 May 1999] +ehn,uist (%J) Fac s! 4n early 1992, the Attorney "eneral of the United States a!!ro$ed @O!eration "unsmo&e,A a s!e ial national fugiti$e a!!rehension !rogram in whi h United States Marshals wor&ed with state and lo al !oli e to a!!rehend dangerous riminals# 2his effe ti$e !rogram ultimately resulted in o$er ),777 arrests in 47 metro!olitan areas# One of the dangerous fugiti$es identified as a target of @O!eration "unsmo&eA was -omini 1ilson, the son of +harles and "eraldine 1ilson# -omini 1ilson had $iolated his !robation on !re$ious felony harges of robbery, theft, and assault with intent to rob, and the !oli e om!uter listed @ aution indi atorsA that he was li&ely to be armed, to resist arrest, and to @assault !oli e#A 2he om!uter also listed his address as 979 Dorth StoneStreet A$enue in (o &$ille, Maryland# Un&nown to the !oli e, this was a tually the home of -omini 1ilson*s !arents# 2hus, in A!ril 1992, the +ir uit +ourt for Montgomery +ounty issued three arrest warrants for -omini 1ilson, one for ea h of his !robation $iolations# 2he warrants were ea h addressed to @any duly authori%ed !ea e offi er,A and ommanded su h offi ers to arrest him and bring him @immediatelyA before the +ir uit +ourt to answer an indi tment as to his !robation $iolation# 2he warrants made no mention of media !resen e or assistan e# 4n the early morning hours of 1/ A!ril 1992, a "unsmo&e team of -e!uty United States Marshals and Montgomery +ounty 'oli e offi ers assembled to e.e ute the -omini 1ilson warrants# 2he team was a om!anied by a re!orter and a !hotogra!her from the 1ashington 'ost, who had been in$ited by the Marshals to a om!any them on their mission

as !art of a Marshal*s Ser$i e ride=along !oli y# At /H45 a#m#, the offi ers, with media re!resentati$es in tow, entered the dwelling at 979 Dorth StoneStreet A$enue in the 5in oln 'ar& neighborhood of (o &$ille# +harles and "eraldine 1ilson were still in bed when they heard the offi ers enter the home# +harles 1ilson, dressed only in a !air of briefs, ran into the li$ing room to in$estigate# -is o$ering at least 5 men in street lothes with guns in his li$ing room, he angrily demanded that they state their business, and re!eatedly ursed the offi ers# 9elie$ing him to be an angry -omini 1ilson, the offi ers 3ui &ly subdued him on the floor# "eraldine 1ilson ne.t entered the li$ing room to in$estigate, wearing only a nightgown# She obser$ed her husband being restrained by the armed offi ers# 1hen their !rote ti$e swee! was om!leted, the offi ers learned that -omini 1ilson was not in the house, and they de!arted# -uring the time that the offi ers were in the home, the 1ashington 'ost !hotogra!her too& numerous !i tures# 2he !rint re!orter was also a!!arently in the li$ing room obser$ing the onfrontation between the !oli e and +harles 1ilson# At no time, howe$er, were the re!orters in$ol$ed in the e.e ution of the arrest warrant# +harles and "eraldine 1ilson sued the law enfor ement offi ials in their !ersonal a!a ities for money damages, and ontended that the offi ers* a tions in bringing members of the media to obser$e and re ord the attem!ted e.e ution of the arrest warrant $iolated their Fourth Amendment rights# 2he -istri t +ourt denied the !oli e offi ers* motion for summary 0udgment on the basis of 3ualified immunity# On interlo utory a!!eal to the +ourt of A!!eals, a di$ided !anel re$ersed and held that the offi ers were entitled to 3ualified immunity# 2he ase was twi e reheard en ban , where a di$ided +ourt of A!!eals again u!held the defense of 3ualified immunity# 2he +ourt of A!!eals de lined to de ide whether the a tions of the !oli e $iolated the Fourth Amendment# 4t on luded instead that be ause no ourt had held :at the time of the sear h; that media !resen e during a !oli e entry into a residen e $iolated the Fourth Amendment, the right allegedly $iolated by !etitioners was not @ learly establishedA and thus 3ualified immunity was !ro!er# 141 F# )d 111 :+A4 199<;# Fi$e 0udges dissented, arguing that the offi ers* a tions did $iolate the Fourth Amendment, and that the learly established !rote tions of the Fourth Amendment were $iolated# "ss#e! 1hether the !oli e offi ers were 0ustified to bring along the 1ashington 'ost re!orters in the e.e ution of the warrant inside the house of +harles and "eraldine 1ilson# $el%! Do# Although the offi ers undoubtedly were entitled to enter the 1ilson home in order

to e.e ute the arrest warrant for -omini 1ilson, they were not entitled to bring a news!a!er re!orter and a !hotogra!her with them# 1hile it does not mean that e$ery !oli e a tion while inside a home must be e.!li itly authori%ed by the te.t of the warrant :Fourth Amendment allows tem!orary detainer of homeowner while !oli e sear h the home !ursuant to warrant;, the Fourth Amendment does re3uire that !oli e a tions in e.e ution of a warrant be related to the ob0e ti$es of the authori%ed intrusion :2he !ur!oses 0ustifying a !oli e sear h stri tly limit the !ermissible e.tent of the sear h;# +ertainly the !resen e of re!orters inside the home was not related to the ob0e ti$es of the authori%ed intrusion# 4nasmu h as that the re!orters did not engage in the e.e ution of the warrant and did not assist the !oli e in their tas&, the re!orters were not !resent for any reason related to the 0ustifi ation for !oli e entry into the homeNthe a!!rehension of -omini 1ilson# 2his is not a ase in whi h the !resen e of the third !arties dire tly aided in the e.e ution of the warrant# 1here the !oli e enter a home under the authority of a warrant to sear h for stolen !ro!erty, the !resen e of third !arties for the !ur!ose of identifying the stolen !ro!erty has long been a!!ro$ed by this +ourt and our ommon=law tradition# 2he laim of the offi ers, that the !resen e of the 1ashington 'ost re!orters in the 1ilsons* home nonetheless ser$ed a number of legitimate law enfor ement !ur!oses ignores, the im!ortan e of the right of residential !ri$a y at the ore of the Fourth Amendment# 4t may well be that media ride= alongs further the law enfor ement ob0e ti$es of the !oli e in a general sense, but that is not the same as furthering the !ur!oses of the sear h# 1ere su h generali%ed @law enfor ement ob0e ti$esA themsel$es suffi ient to trum! the Fourth Amendment, the !rote tions guaranteed by that Amendment*s te.t would be signifi antly watered down# Although it may be laimed the !resen e of third !arties ould ser$e in some situations to minimi%e !oli e abuses and !rote t sus!e ts, and also to !rote t the safety of the offi ers, su h a situation is signifi antly different from the media !resen e in this ase, where the 1ashington 'ost re!orters in the 1ilsons* home were wor&ing on a story for their own !ur!oses# 2a&en in their entirety, the reasons ad$an ed by the offi ers fall short of 0ustifying the !resen e of media inside a home# 2hus, it is a $iolation of the Fourth Amendment for !oli e to bring members of the media or other third !arties into a home during the e.e ution of a warrant when the !resen e of the third !arties in the home was not in aid of the e.e ution of the warrant#

+#r:os v. .,ie7 o7 4 a77, AF& [GR 64261, 26 Dece;3er 19(4] En Banc, Escolin (J): !- concur, ! too) no #art Fac s! On 8 -e ember 19<2, Cudge >rnani +ru%='aOo, >.e uti$e Cudge of the then +F4 (i%al LIue%on +ityM, issued 2 sear h warrants where the !remises at 19, (oad ), 'ro0e t /, Iue%on +ity, and 8<4 Units + G -, (MS 9uilding, Iue%on A$enue, Iue%on +ity, business addresses of the @Metro!olitan MailA and @1e ForumA news!a!ers, res!e ti$ely, were sear hed, and offi e and !rinting ma hines, e3ui!ment, !ara!hernalia, motor $ehi les and other arti les used in the !rinting, !ubli ation and distribution of the said news!a!ers, as well as numerous !a!ers, do uments, boo&s and other written literature alleged to be in the !ossession and ontrol of Cose 9urgos, Cr# !ublisher=editor of the @1e ForumA news!a!er, were sei%ed# A !etition for ertiorari, !rohibition and mandamus with !reliminary mandatory and !rohibitory in0un tion was filed after / months following the raid to 3uestion the $alidity of said sear h warrants, and to en0oin the Cudge Ad$o ate "eneral of the AF', the ity fis al of Iue%on +ity, et#al# from using the arti les sei%ed as e$iden e in +riminal +ase I=7228<2 of the (2+ Iue%on +ity :'eo!le $# 9urgos;# "ss#e! 1hether allegations of !ossession and !rinting of sub$ersi$e materials may be the basis of the issuan e of sear h warrants# $el%! Se tion ) !ro$ides that no sear h warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e. e!t u!on !robable ause to be determined by the 0udge, or su h other res!onsible offi er as may be authori%ed by law, after e.amination under oath or affirmation of the om!lainant and the witnesses he may !rodu e, and !arti ularly des ribing the !la e to be sear hed and the !ersons or things to be sei%ed# 'robable ause for a sear h is defined as su h fa ts and ir umstan es whi h would lead a reasonably dis reet and !rudent man to belie$e that an offense has been ommitted and that the ob0e ts sought in onne tion with the offense are in the !la e sought to be sear hed# 4n mandating that @no warrant shall issue e. e!t u!on !robable ause to be determined by the 0udge, after e.amination under oath or affirmation of the om!lainant and the witnesses he may !rodu eA, the +onstitution re3uires no less than !ersonal &nowledge by the om!lainant or his witnesses of the fa ts u!on whi h the issuan e of a sear h warrant may be 0ustified# 6erein, a statement in the effe t that 9urgos @is in !ossession or has in his ontrol !rinting e3ui!ment and other !ara!hernalia, news !ubli ations and other do uments whi h were used and are all ontinuously being used as a means of

<

ommitting the offense of sub$ersion !unishable under '- <<5, as amendedA is a mere on lusion of law and does not satisfy the re3uirements of !robable ause# 9ereft of su h !arti ulars as would 0ustify a finding of the e.isten e of !robable ause, said allegation annot ser$e as basis for the issuan e of a sear h warrant# Further, when the sear h warrant a!!lied for is dire ted against a news!a!er !ublisher or editor in onne tion with the !ubli ation of sub$ersi$e materials, the a!!li ation andBor its su!!orting affida$its must ontain a s!e ifi ation, stating with !arti ularity the alleged sub$ersi$e material he has !ublished or is intending to !ublish# Mere generali%ation will not suffi e# .,an%ler vs. Miller [)21 84 31), 1) A'ril 1992] .ins/urg (J): & concur, ! "iled se#arate dissenting o#inion* Fac s! 2he 5ibertarian 'arty nominated 1al&er 5# +handler for the offi e of 5ieutenant "o$ernor, Sharon 2# 6arris for the offi e of +ommissioner of Agri ulture, and Cames -# 1al&er for the offi e of member of the "eneral Assembly# 4n May 1994, about one month before the deadline for submission of the ertifi ates re3uired by P21=2=147, +handler, 6arris, and 1al&er filed an a tion in the United States -istri t +ourt for the Dorthern -istri t of "eorgia# 2hey asserted, inter alia, that the drug tests re3uired by P21=2=147 $iolated their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States +onstitution, naming "o$ernor ?ell -# Miller and two other state offi ials in$ol$ed in the administration of P21=2=147, as defendants# +handler, et #al# re3uested de laratory and in0un ti$e relief barring enfor ement of the statute# 4n Cune 1994, the -istri t +ourt denied +handlers* motion for a !reliminary in0un tion# 2he !ro$ision in the statute of the State of "eorgia re3uired andidates for designated state offi es to ertify that they ha$e ta&en a drug test and that the test result was negati$e# +handler, et# al# a!!arently submitted to the drug tests, obtained the ertifi ates re3uired by P21=2=147, and a!!eared on the ballot# After the 1994 ele tion, the !arties 0ointly mo$ed for the entry of final 0udgment on sti!ulated fa ts# 4n Canuary 1995, the -istri t +ourt entered final 0udgment for Miller, et# al# A di$ided >le$enth +ir uit !anel, relying on the US +ourt*s !re edents sustaining drug testing !rograms for student athletes, ustoms em!loyees, and railway em!loyees, the United States affirmed and 0udged the "eorgia*s law to be onstitutional# "ss#e! 1hether the sus!i ionless sear hes, re3uired in "eorgia*s drug testing for andidates for !ubli offi es, is reasonable#

$el%! "eorgia*s drug testing re3uirement, im!osed by law and enfor ed by state offi ials, effe ts a sear h within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments# :+olle tion and testing of urine to meet "eorgia*s ertifi ation statute @ onstitutes a sear h sub0e t to the demands of the Fourth AmendmentA;# As e.!lained in S&inner, go$ernment ordered @ olle tion and testing of urine intrudes u!on e.!e tations of !ri$a y that so iety has long re ogni%ed as reasonable#A :S&inner and Fon (aab, 4<9 U#S#, at /18;# 2o be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a sear h ordinarily must be based on indi$iduali%ed sus!i ion of wrongdoing# 9ut !arti ulari%ed e. e!tions to the main rule are sometimes warranted based on @s!e ial needs, beyond the normal need for law enfor ement#A 1hen su h @s!e ial needsAN on erns other than rime dete tionNare alleged in 0ustifi ation of a Fourth Amendment intrusion, ourts must underta&e a onte.t s!e ifi in3uiry, e.amining losely the om!eting !ri$ate and !ubli interests ad$an ed by the !arties# 4n limited ir umstan es, where the !ri$a y interests im!li ated by the sear h are minimal, and where an im!ortant go$ernmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be !la ed in 0eo!ardy by a re3uirement of indi$iduali%ed sus!i ion, a sear h may be reasonable des!ite the absen e of su h sus!i ion# Our !re edents establish that the !roffered s!e ial need for drug testing must be substantialNim!ortant enough to o$erride the indi$idual*s a &nowledged !ri$a y interest, suffi iently $ital to su!!ress the Fourth Amendment*s normal re3uirement of indi$iduali%ed sus!i ion# Miller, et# al#*s defense of the statute rests !rimarily on the in om!atibility of unlawful drug use with holding high state offi e, but notably la &ing therein is any indi ation of a on rete danger demanding de!arture from the Fourth Amendment*s main rule, and nothing in the re ord hints that the ha%ards Miller, et# al#, broadly des ribe :i#e# the use of illegal drugs draws into 3uestion an offi ial*s 0udgment and integrity, 0eo!ardi%es the dis harge of !ubli fun tions, in luding antidrug law enfor ement efforts, and undermines !ubli onfiden e and trust in ele ted offi ials; are real and not sim!ly hy!otheti al for "eorgia*s !olity# Further, "eorgia*s ertifi ation re3uirement is not well designed to identify andidates who $iolate antidrug laws, nor is the s heme a redible means to deter illi it drug users from see&ing ele tion to state offi e# 1hat is left, after lose re$iew of "eorgia*s s heme, is the image the State see&s to !ro0e t# 9y re3uiring andidates for !ubli offi e to submit to drug testing, "eorgia dis!lays its ommitment to the struggle against drug abuse# 2he need re$ealed, in short, is symboli , not @s!e ial,A as that term draws meaning from our ase law# 2hus, howe$er well meant, the andidate drug test

"eorgia has de$ised diminishes !ersonal !ri$a y for a symbol*s sa&e# 2he Fourth Amendment shields so iety against that state a tion# 4n fine, where the ris& to !ubli safety is substantial and real, blan&et sus!i ionless sear hes alibrated to the ris& may ran& as @reasonable#A 9ut where, as herein, !ubli safety is not genuinely in 0eo!ardy, the Fourth Amendment !re ludes the sus!i ionless sear h, no matter how on$eniently arranged# &eo'le vs. .,#a $o 4an [GR 12(222, 12 *#ne 1999] En Banc, Davide Jr* (%J): !3 concur, ! on leave Fac s! 4n res!onse to re!orts of ram!ant smuggling of firearms and other ontraband, Cim 5agas a +id, as +hief of 'oli e of the 9a notan 'oli e Station, of 5a Union began !atrolling the 9a notan oastline with his offi ers# 1hile monitoring the oastal area of 9arangay 9ulala on 29 Mar h 1995, he inter e!ted a radio all at around 12H45 !#m# from 9arangay +a!tain Cuan Almoite of 9arangay 2ammo alao re3uesting !oli e assistan e regarding an unfamiliar s!eedboat the latter had s!otted, whi h loo&ed different from the boats ordinarily used by fisherfol& of the area and was !oised to do & at 2ammo alao shores# +id and / of his men led by his +hief 4n$estigator, S'O1 (eynoso 9adua, !ro eeded forthwith to 2ammo alao bea h, onferred with Almoite, and obser$ed that the s!eedboat ferried a lone male !assenger# 1hen the s!eedboat landed, the male !assenger alighted, and using both hands, arried what a!!eared a multi olored strawbag, and wal&ed towards the road# 9y this time, Almoite, +id and 9adua, the latter two ons!i uous in their uniform and issued side=arms, be ame sus!i ious of the man as he suddenly hanged dire tion and bro&e into a run u!on seeing the a!!roa hing offi ers# 9adua, !re$ented the man from fleeing by holding on to his right arm# Although +id introdu ed themsel$es as !oli e offi ers, the man a!!eared im!assi$e# S!ea&ing in >nglish, then in 2agalog, and later in 4lo ano, +id then re3uested the man to o!en his bag, but he seemed not to understand# +id then resorted to @sign language,A motioning with his hands for the man to o!en the bag# 2he man a!!arently understood and a eded to the re3uest# A sear h of the bag yielded se$eral trans!arent !lasti !a &ets ontaining yellowish rystalline substan es# As +id wished to !ro eed to the !oli e station, he signaled the man to follow, but the latter did not om!rehend# 6en e, +id !la ed his arm around the shoulders of the man and es orted the latter to the !oli e head3uarters# At the !oli e station, +id then @re ited and informed the man of his onstitutional rightsA to remain silent, to ha$e the assistan e of a ounsel, et # >li iting no res!onse from the man, +id ordered his men

to find a resident of the area who s!o&e +hinese to a t as an inter!reter# 4n the meantime, 9adua o!ened the bag and ounted 29 !lasti !a &ets ontaining yellowish rystalline substan es# 2he inter!reter, Mr# "o 'ing "uan, finally arri$ed, through whom the man was @a!!rised of his onstitutional rights#A 1hen the !oli emen as&ed the man se$eral 3uestions, he retreated to his obstinate reti en e and merely showed his 4- with the name +hua 6o San !rinted thereon# +hua*s bag and its ontents were sent to the 'D' +rime 5aboratory at +am! -iego Silang, +arlatan, San Fernando, 5a Union for laboratory e.amination# 4n the meantime, +hua was detained at the 9a notan 'oli e Station# 5ater, 'oli e +hief 4ns!e tor and Forensi +hemist 2heresa Ann 9ugayong +id :wife of +id;, ondu ted a laboratory e.amination of 29 !lasti !a &ets, adn in her +hemistry (e!ort -=725=95, she stated that her 3ualitati$e e.amination established the ontents of the !lasti !a &ets, weighing 2<#8 &ilos, to be !ositi$e of metham!hetamine hydro hloride or shabu, a regulated drug# +hua was initially harged with illegal !ossession of metham!hetamine hydro hloride before the (2+ :+riminal +ase 47)8;# 6owe$er, !ursuant to the re ommendation of the Offi e of the 'ro$in ial 'rose utor of San Fernando, 5a Union, the information was subse3uently amended to allege that +hua was in $iolation of Se tion 15, Arti le 444 of (A /425 as amended by (A 8/59 :illegal trans!ort of a regulated drug;# At his arraignment on )1 Culy 1995, where the amended om!laint was read to him by a Fu&ien=s!ea&ing inter!reter, +hua entered a !lea of not guilty# 2rial finally ensued, with inter!reters assigned to +hua :u!on the (2+*s dire t re3uest to the 2ai!ei > onomi and +ultural Offi e in the 'hili!!ines, after its failure to a 3uire one from the -e!artment of Foreign Affairs;# +hua !ro$ided a om!letely different story, laiming that the bags belong to his em!loyer +ho +hu (ong, who he a om!anied in the s!eedboat, that they de ided to do & when they were low on fuel and tele!hone battery, that the !oli e, with nary any s!o&en word but only gestures and hand mo$ements, es orted him to the !re in t where he was hand uffed and tied to a hair, that the !oli e, led by an offi er, arri$ed with the motor engine of the s!eedboat and a bag, whi h they !resented to him, that the !oli e ins!e ted o!ened the bag, weighed the ontents, then !ro laimed them as metham!hetamine hydro hloride# 4n a de ision !romulgated on 17 February 1998, the (2+ on$i ted +hua for trans!orting 2<#8 &ilos of metham!hetamine hydro hloride without legal authority to do so# +hua !rays for the re$ersal of the (2+ de ision and his a 3uittal before the Su!reme +ourt# "ss#e! 1hether !ersistent re!orts of ram!ant smuggling of firearm and other ontraband

17

arti les, +hua*s water raft differing in a!!earan e from the usual fishing boats that ommonly ruise o$er the 9a notan seas, +hua*s illegal entry into the 'hili!!ines, +hua*s sus!i ious beha$ior, i#e# he attem!ted to flee when he saw the !oli e authorities, and the a!!arent ease by whi h +hua an return to and na$igate his s!eedboat with immediate dis!at h towards the high seas, onstitute @!robable ause#A $el%! Do# >nshrined in the +onstitution is the in$iolable right to !ri$a y of home and !erson# 4t e.!li itly ordains that !eo!le ha$e the right to be se ure in their !ersons, houses, !a!ers and effe ts against unreasonable sear hes and sei%ures of whate$er nature and for any !ur!ose# 4nse!arable, and not merely orollary or in idental to said right and e3ually hallowed in and by the +onstitution, is the e. lusionary !rin i!le whi h de rees that any e$iden e obtained in $iolation of said right is inadmissible for any !ur!ose in any !ro eeding# 2he +onstitutional !ros ri!tion against unreasonable sear hes and sei%ures does not, of ourse, forestall reasonable sear hes and sei%ure# 2his interdi tion against warrantless sear hes and sei%ures, howe$er, is not absolute and su h warrantless sear hes and sei%ures ha$e long been deemed !ermissible by 0uris!ruden e# 2he (ules of +ourt re ogni%e !ermissible warrantless arrests, to witH :1; arrests in flagrante deli to, :2; arrests effe ted in hot !ursuit, and :); arrests of es a!ed !risoners# 2he !rose ution and the defense !ainted e.tremely di$ergent $ersions of the in ident, but the +ourt is ertain that +hua was arrested and his bag sear hed without the benefit of a warrant# 2here are no fa ts on re ord reasonably suggesti$e or demonstrati$e of +hua*s !arti i!ation in an ongoing riminal enter!rise that ould ha$e s!urred !oli e offi ers from ondu ting the obtrusi$e sear h# 2he (2+ ne$er too& the !ains of !ointing to su h fa ts, but !redi ated mainly its de ision on the finding that @a used was aught red= handed arrying the bagful of shabu when a!!rehended#A 4n short, there is no !robable ause# 'ersistent re!orts of ram!ant smuggling of firearm and other ontraband arti les, +hua*s water raft differing in a!!earan e from the usual fishing boats that ommonly ruise o$er the 9a notan seas, +hua*s illegal entry into the 'hili!!ines, +hua*s sus!i ious beha$ior, i#e# he attem!ted to flee when he saw the !oli e authorities, and the a!!arent ease by whi h +hua an return to and na$igate his s!eedboat with immediate dis!at h towards the high seas, do not onstitute @!robable ause#A Done of the telltale lues, e#g#, bag or !a &age emanating the !ungent odor of mari0uana or other !rohibited drug, 27 onfidential re!ort andBor !ositi$e identifi ation by informers of ourier:s; of !rohibited drug andBor the time and !la e

where they will trans!ortBdeli$er the same, sus!i ious demeanor or beha$ior and sus!i ious bulge in the waist K a e!ted by the +ourt as suffi ient to 0ustify a warrantless arrest e.ists in the ase# 2here was no lassified information that a foreigner would disembar& at 2ammo alao bea h bearing !rohibited drug on the date in 3uestion# +hua was not identified as a drug ourier by a !oli e informer or agent# 2he fa t that the $essel that ferried him to shore bore no resemblan e to the fishing boats of the area did not automati ally mar& him as in the !ro ess of !er!etrating an offense# 2he sear h annot therefore be denominated as in idental to an arrest# 2o reiterate, the sear h was not in idental to an arrest# 2here was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did not fall under the e.em!tions allowed by the (ules of +ourt as already shown# From all indi ations, the sear h was nothing but a fishing e.!edition# +asting aside the regulated substan e as e$iden e, the same being the fruit of a !oisonous tree, the remaining e$iden e on re ord are insuffi ient, feeble and ineffe tual to sustain +hua*s on$i tion# &eo'le vs. Molina [GR 133912, 19 Fe3r#ary 2111] En Banc, 0nares12antiago (J): !4 concur Fac s! Sometime in Cune 199/, S'O1 Marino 'aguido!on, then a member of the 'hili!!ine Dational 'oli e :'D'; detailed at 're in t Do# ), Matina, -a$ao +ity, re ei$ed an information regarding the !resen e of an alleged mari0uana !usher in -a$ao +ity# 2he first time he ame to see the said mari0uana !usher in !erson was during the first wee& of Culy 199/# S'O1 'aguido!on was then with his informer when a motor y le !assed by# 6is informer !ointed to the motor y le dri$er, "regorio Mula y Malagura :QA9oboyA;, as the !usher# As to Dasario Molina y Manamat :Q @9obongA;, S'O1 'aguido!on had no o asion to see him !rior to < August 199/# At about 8H)7 a#m# of < August 199/, S'O1 'aguido!on re ei$ed an information that the alleged !usher will be !assing at D6A, Maa, -a$ao +ity any time that morning# +onse3uently, at around <H77 a#m# he alled for assistan e at the 'D', 're in t ), Matina, -a$ao +ity, whi h immediately dis!at hed the team of S'O4 -ionisio +loribel :team leader;, S'O2 'aguido!on :brother of S'O1 Marino 'aguido!on;, and S'O1 'am!lona, to !ro eed to the house of S'O1 Marino 'aguido!on where they would wait for the alleged !usher to !ass by# At around 9H)7 a#m#, while the team were !ositioned in the house of S'O1 'aguido!on, a @trisi&adA arrying Mula and Molina !assed by# At that instan e, S'O1 'aguido!on !ointed to Mula and Molina as the !ushers# 2hereu!on, the team boarded their $ehi le and o$ertoo& the @trisi&ad#A S'O1 'aguido!on was left in his house, )7 meters from where Mula and Molina

11

were a osted# 2he !oli e offi ers then ordered the @trisi&adA to sto!# At that !oint, Mula, who was holding a bla & bag, handed the same to Molina# Subse3uently, S'O1 'am!lona introdu ed himself as a !oli e offi er and as&ed Molina to o!en the bag# Molina re!lied, @9oss, if !ossible we will settle this#A S'O1 'am!lona insisted on o!ening the bag, whi h re$ealed dried mari0uana lea$es inside# 2hereafter, Mula and Molina were hand uffed by the !oli e offi ers# On / -e ember 199/, the a used Mula and Molina, through ounsel, 0ointly filed a -emurrer to >$iden e, ontending that the mari0uana allegedly sei%ed from them is inadmissible as e$iden e for ha$ing been obtained in $iolation of their onstitutional right against unreasonable sear hes and sei%ures# 2he demurrer was denied by the trial ourt# A motion for re onsideration was filed by the a used, but this was li&ewise denied# 2he a used wai$ed !resentation of e$iden e and o!ted to file a 0oint memorandum# On 25 A!ril 1998, the trial ourt rendered the de ision, finding the a used guilty of the offense harged, and senten ed both to suffer the !enalty of death by lethal in0e tion# 'ursuant to Arti le 48 of the (e$ised 'enal +ode and (ule 122, Se tion 17 of the (ules of +ourt, the ase was ele$ated to the Su!reme +ourt on automati re$iew# "ss#e! 1hether Mula and Molina manifested outward indi ation that would 0ustify their arrest, and the sei%ure of !rohibited drugs that were in their !ossession# $el%! 2he fundamental law of the land mandates that sear hes and sei%ures be arried out in a reasonable fashion, that is, by $irtue or on the strength of a sear h warrant !redi ated u!on the e.isten e of a !robable ause# +om!lementary to the foregoing !ro$ision is the e. lusionary rule enshrined under Arti le 444, Se tion ), !aragra!h 2, whi h bolsters and solidifies the !rote tion against unreasonable sear hes and sei%ures# 2he foregoing onstitutional !ros ri!tion, howe$er, is not without e. e!tions# Sear h and sei%ure may be made without a warrant and the e$iden e obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instan esH :1; sear h in ident to a lawful arrest, :2; sear h of a mo$ing motor $ehi le, :); sear h in $iolation of ustoms laws, :4; sei%ure of e$iden e in !lain $iew, :5; when the a used himself wai$es his right against unreasonable sear hes and sei%ures, and :/; sto! and fris& situations :2erry sear h;# 2he first e. e!tion :sear h in idental to a lawful arrest; in ludes a $alid warrantless sear h and sei%ure !ursuant to an e3ually $alid warrantless arrest whi h must !re ede the sear h# Still, the law re3uires that there be first a lawful arrest before a sear h an be made K the !ro ess annot be re$ersed# 6erein, Mula and Molina manifested

no outward indi ation that would 0ustify their arrest# 4n holding a bag on board a trisi&ad, they ould not be said to be ommitting, attem!ting to ommit or ha$e ommitted a rime# 4t matters not that Molina res!onded @9oss, if !ossible we will settle thisA to the re3uest of S'O1 'am!lona to o!en the bag# Su h res!onse whi h allegedly reinfor ed the @sus!i ionA of the arresting offi ers that Mula and Molina were ommitting a rime, is an e3ui$o al statement whi h standing alone will not onstitute !robable ause to effe t an in flagrante deli to arrest# Dote that were it not for S'O1 Marino 'aguido!on, Mula and Molina ould not be the sub0e t of any sus!i ion, reasonable or otherwise# Further, it would a!!ear that the names and addresses of Mula and Molina ame to the &nowledge of S'O1 'aguido!on only after they were arrested, and su h annot lend a semblan e of $alidity on the arrest effe ted by the !ea e offi ers# 1ithal, the +ourt holds that the arrest of Mula and Molina does not fall under the e. e!tions allowed by the rules# 6en e, the sear h ondu ted on their !erson was li&ewise illegal# +onse3uently, the mari0uana sei%ed by the !ea e offi ers ould not be admitted as e$iden e against them# &eo'le vs. 4alan:#i [GR 1332)4-)), 19 A'ril 2111] 2econd Division, 3endo4a (J): 4 concur Fac s! On 2/ -e ember 1995, Sr# 4ns!# Aguilar a!!lied for a warrant in the (egional 2rial +ourt, 9ran h 97, -asmariOias, +a$ite, to sear h the residen e of (obert Salanguit y Jo on 9inhagan St#, Do$ali hes, Iue%on +ity# 6e !resented as his witness S'O1 >dmund 9adua, who testified that as a !oseur=buyer, he was able to !ur hase 2#12 grams of shabu from Salanguit# 2he sale too& !la e in Salunguit*s room, and 9adua saw that the shabu was ta&en by Salunguit from a abinet inside his room# 2he a!!li ation was granted, and a sear h warrant was later issued by 'residing Cudge -olores 5# >s!aOol# At about 17H)7 !#m# of said day, a grou! of about 17 !oli emen, along with one i$ilian informer, went to the residen e of Salunguit to ser$e the warrant# 2he !oli e o!erati$es &no &ed on Salanguit*s door, but nobody o!ened it# 2hey heard !eo!le inside the house, a!!arently !ani &ing# 2he !oli e o!erati$es then for ed the door o!en and entered the house# After showing the sear h warrant to the o u!ants of the house, 5t# +ortes and his grou! started sear hing the house# 2hey found 12 small heat= sealed trans!arent !lasti bags ontaining a white rystalline substan e, a !a!er li! bo. also ontaining a white rystalline substan e, and two bri &s of dried lea$es whi h a!!eared to be mari0uana wra!!ed in news!rint ha$ing a total weight of a!!ro.imately 1,255 grams# A re ei!t of the items sei%ed was !re!ared, but Salanguit refused to sign it# After the sear h,

12

the !oli e o!erati$es too& Salanguit with them to Station 17, >-SA, Jamuning, Iue%on +ity, along with the items they had sei%ed# 'O) -ua%o re3uested a laboratory e.amination of the onfis ated e$iden e# 2he white rystalline substan e with a total weight of 2#88 grams and those ontained in a small bo. with a total weight of <#)8 grams were found to be !ositi$e for metham!hetamine hydro hloride# On the other hand, the two bri &s of dried lea$es, one weighing 425 grams and the other <57 grams, were found to be mari0uana# +harges against (oberto Salanguit y Jo for $iolations of (e!ubli A t :(A; /425, i#e# for !ossession of shabu and mari0uana, :+riminal +ases I=95=/4)58 and I= 95=/4)5<, res!e ti$ely; were filed on 2< -e ember 1995# After hearing, the trial ourt rendered its de ision, on$i ting Salanguit in +riminal +ases I=95=/4)58 and I=95=/4)5< for $iolation of Se tion 1/ and <, res!e ti$ely, (A /425, and senten ing him to suffer an indeterminate senten e with a minimum of / months of arresto mayor and a ma.imum of 4 years and 2 months of !rision orre ional, and re lusion !er!etua and to !ay a fine of '877,777#77, res!e ti$ely# Salanguit a!!ealed, ontesting his on$i tion on the grounds that :1; the admissibility of the shabu allegedly re o$ered from his residen e as e$iden e against him on the ground that the warrant used in obtaining it was in$alid, :2; the admissibility in e$iden e of the mari0uana allegedly sei%ed from Salanguit to the @!lain $iewA do trine, and :); the em!loyment of unne essary for e by the !oli e in the e.e ution of the warrant# "ss#e! 1hether the warrant was in$alid for failure of !ro$iding e$iden e to su!!ort the sei%ure of @drug !ara!hernaliaA, and whether the mari0uana may be in luded as e$iden e in light of the @!lain $iew do trine#A $el%! 2he warrant authori%ed the sei%ure of @undetermined 3uantity of shabu and drug !ara!hernalia#A >$iden e was !resented showing !robable ause of the e.isten e of metham!hetamine hydro hloride or shabu# 2he fa t that there was no !robable ause to su!!ort the a!!li ation for the sei%ure of drug !ara!hernalia does not warrant the on lusion that the sear h warrant is $oid# 2his fa t would be material only if drug !ara!hernalia was in fa t sei%ed by the !oli e# 2he fa t is that none was ta&en by $irtue of the sear h warrant issued# 4f at all, therefore, the sear h warrant is $oid only insofar as it authori%ed the sei%ure of drug !ara!hernalia, but it is $alid as to the sei%ure of metham!hetamine hydro hloride as to whi h e$iden e was !resented showing !robable ause as to its e.isten e# 4n sum, with res!e t to the sei%ure of shabu from Salanguit*s residen e, Sear h 1arrant 1/7 was !ro!erly issued, su h warrant being founded on !robable

ause !ersonally determined by the 0udge under oath or affirmation of the de!osing witness and !arti ularly des ribing the !la e to be sear hed and the things to be sei%ed# 1ith res!e t to, and in light of the @!lain $iew do trine,A the !oli e failed to allege the time when the mari0uana was found, i#e#, whether !rior to, or ontem!oraneous with, the shabu sub0e t of the warrant, or whether it was re o$ered on Salanguit*s !erson or in an area within his immediate ontrol# 4ts re o$ery, therefore, !resumably during the sear h ondu ted after the shabu had been re o$ered from the abinet, as attested to by S'O1 9adua in his de!osition, was in$alid# 2hus, the +ourt affirmed the de ision as to +riminal +ase I=95= /4)58 only# 4 a. Rosa Minin: .o;'any vs. Assis an &rovincial Fiscal 6a3ala [GR L-44223, 31 A#:#s 19(2] En Banc, Bidin (J): !( concur, ! too) no #art Fac s! On 21 Mar h 1984, Sta# (osa Mining +om!any filed a om!laint for attem!ted theft of materials :s ra! iron; forming !art of the installations on its mining !ro!erty at Cose 'anganiban, +amarines Dorte against (omeo "arrido and "il Ala!an with the Offi e of the 'ro$in ial Fis al of +amarines Dorte, then headed by 'ro$in ial Fis al Coa3uin 4lustre# 2he ase was assigned to third Assistant Fis al >steban '# 'anotes for !reliminary in$estigation who, after ondu ting said in$estigation, issued a resolution dated 2/ August 1984 re ommending that an information for Attem!ted 2heft be filed against "arrido and Ala!an on a finding of !rima fa ie ase whi h resolution was a!!ro$ed by Fis al 4lustre# "arrido and Ala!an sought re onsideration of the resolution but the same was denied by Fis al 4lustre in a resolution dated 14 O tober 1984# On 29 O tober 1984, Fis al 4lustre filed with the +ourt of First 4nstan e :+F4; of +amarines Dorte an 4nformation dated 18 O tober 19<8 :+riminal +ase <21;, harging "arrido aand Ala!an with the rime of Attem!ted 2heft# 4n a letter dated 22 O tober 1984, "arrido and Ala!an re3uested the Se retary of Custi e for a re$iew of the (esolutions of the Offi e of the 'ro$in ial Fis al dated 2/ August 1984 and 14 O tober 1984# On / Do$ember 1984, the +hief State 'rose utor ordered the 'ro$in ial Fis al by telegram to @ele$ate entire re ords 'FO +ase 588 against "arrido et al#, re$iew in fi$e days and defer all !ro eedings !ending re$iew#A On / Mar h 1985, the Se retary of Custi e, after re$iewing the re ords, re$ersed the findings of !rima fa ie ase of the 'ro$in ial Fis al and dire ted said !rose uting offi er to immediately mo$e for the dismissal of the riminal ase# 2he +om!any sought re onsideration of the dire ti$e of the Se retary of Custi e but the latter denied the

1)

same in a letter dated 11 Cune 1985# A motion to dismiss dated 1/ Se!tember 1985 was then filed by the 'ro$in ial Fis al but the ourt denied the motion on the ground that there was a !rima fa ie e$iden e against "arrido and Ala!an and set the ase for trial on 25 February 198/# "arrido and Ala!an sought re onsideration of the ourt*s ruling but in an Order dated 1) February 198/, the motion filed for said !ur!ose was li&ewise denied# 2rial of the ase was reset to 2) A!ril 198/# 2hereafter, Fis al 4lustre was a!!ointed a 0udge in the +F4 of Albay and Fis al ?abala be ame offi er=in= harge of the 'ro$in ial Fis al*s Offi e of +amarines Dorte# On 19 A!ril 198/, Fis al ?abala filed a Se ond Motion to -ismiss the ase# 2his se ond motion to dismiss was denied by the trial ourt in an order dated 2) A!ril 198/# 1hereu!on, Fis al ?abala manifested that he would not !rose ute the ase and disauthori%ed any !ri$ate !rose utor to a!!ear therein# 6en e, the +om!any filed a !etition for mandamus before the Su!reme +ourt# "ss#e! 1hether the fis al an refuse to !rose ute the ase if the Se retary of Custi e re$ersed the findings of !rima fa ie ase by the fis al# $el%! 4f the fis al is not at all on$in ed that a !rima fa ie ase e.ists, he sim!ly annot mo$e for the dismissal of the ase and, when denied, refuse to !rose ute the same# 6e is obliged by law to !ro eed and !rose ute the riminal a tion# 6e annot im!ose his o!inion on the trial ourt# At least what he an do is to ontinue a!!earing for the !rose ution and then turn o$er the !resentation of e$iden e to another fis al or a !ri$ate !rose utor sub0e t to his dire tion and ontrol# 1here there is no other !rose utor a$ailable, he should !ro eed to dis harge his duty and !resent the e$iden e to the best of his ability and let the ourt de ide the merits of the ase on the basis of the e$iden e addu ed by both !arties# 2he mere fa t that the Se retary of Custi e had, after re$iewing the re ords of the ase, dire ted the !rose uting fis al to mo$e for the dismissal of the ase and the motion to dismiss filed !ursuant to said dire ti$e is denied by the trial ourt, is no 0ustifi ation for the refusal of the fis al to !rose ute the ase# On e a om!laint or information is filed in +ourt any dis!osition of the ase as its dismissal or the on$i tion or a 3uittal of the a used rests in the sound dis retion of the +ourt# 2he +ourt is the best and sole 0udge on what to do with the ase before it# 2he determination of the ase is within its e. lusi$e 0urisdi tion and om!eten e# A motion to dismiss the ase filed by the fis al should he addressed to the +ourt who has the o!tion to grant or deny the same# 4t does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the a used or that the

motion was filed after a rein$estigation or u!on instru tions of the Se retary of Custi e who re$iewed the re ords of the in$estigation# &a%eran:a vs. Drilon [GR 961(1, 19 A'ril 1991] En Banc, +egalado (J): !4 concur Fac s! On 1/ O tober 19</, an information for multi!le murder was filed in the (egional 2rial +ourt, "ingoog +ity, against Feli!e "alarion, Manuel Sabit, +esar Sabit, Culito Am!o, >ddie 2orion, Cohn -oe, 'eter -oe and (i hard -oe, for the deaths on 1 May 19<4 of (enato 9u ag, his wife Mel hora 9u ag, and their son (enato 9u ag 44# Fenue was, howe$er, transferred to +agayan de Oro +ity !er Administrati$e Matter <8=2=244# Only Feli!e "alarion was tried and found guilty as harged# 2he rest of the a used remained at large# Feli!e "alarion, howe$er, es a!ed from detention and has not been a!!rehended sin e then# 4n an amended information filed on / O tober 19<<, Feli%ardo (o.as, alias @>ly (o.as,A @Fely (o.asA and @5olong (o.as,A was in luded as a o=a used# (o.as retained Atty# Miguel '# 'aderanga as his ounsel# As ounsel for (o.as, 'aderanga filed, among others, an Omnibus Motion to dismiss, to Iuash the 1arrant of Arrest and to Dullify the Arraignment on 14 O tober 19<<# 2he trial ourt in an order dated 9 Canuary 19<9, denied the omnibus motion but dire ted the +ity 'rose utor @to ondu t another !reliminary in$estigation or rein$estigation in order to grant the a used all the o!!ortunity to addu e whate$er e$iden e he has in su!!ort of his defense#A 4n the ourse of the !reliminary in$estigation, through a signed affida$it, Feli%ardo (o.as im!li ated Atty# 'aderanga in the ommission of the rime harged# 2he +ity 'rose utor of +agayan de Oro +ity inhibited himself from further ondu ting the !reliminary in$estigation against 'aderanga at the instan e of the latter*s ounsel, !er his resolution dated 8 Culy 19<9# 4n his first indorsement to the -e!artment of Custi e, dated 24 Culy 19<9, said ity !rose utor re3uested the -e!artment of Custi e to designate a state !rose utor to ontinue the !reliminary in$estigation against 'aderanga# 4n a resolution dated / Se!tember 19<9, the State 'rose utor 6enri & F# "ingoyon, who was designated to ontinue with the ondu t of the !reliminary in$estigation against 'aderanga, dire ted the amendment of the !re$iously amended information to in lude and im!lead 'aderanga as one of the a used therein# 'aderanga mo$ed for re onsideration, ontending that the !reliminary in$estigation was not yet om!leted when said resolution was !romulgated, and that he was de!ri$ed of his right to !resent a orres!onding ounter= affida$it and additional e$iden e ru ial to the determination of his alleged @lin&ageA to the rime harged# 2he motion was, howe$er,

14

denied by "ingoyon in his order dated 29 Canuary 1997# From the aforesaid resolution and order, 'aderanga filed a 'etition for (e$iew with the -e!artment of Custi e# 2hereafter, he submitted a Su!!lemental 'etition with Memorandum, and then a Su!!lemental Memorandum with Additional >. ul!atoryB>.onerating >$iden e Anne.ed, atta hing thereto an affida$it of (o.as dated 27 Cune 1997 and !ur!orting to be a retra tion of his affida$it of )7 Mar h 1997 wherein he im!li ated 'aderanga# On 17 August 1997, the -e!artment of Custi e, through Underse retary Sil$estre 6# 9ello 444, issued (esolution /4< dismissing the said !etition for re$iew# 6is motion for re onsideration ha$ing been li&ewise denied, 'aderanga then filed the !etition for mandamus and !rohibition before the Su!reme +ourt# "ss#e! 1hether there is no !rima fa ie e$iden e, or !robable ause, or suffi ient 0ustifi ation to hold 'aderangato a tedious and !rolonged !ubli trial# $el%! A !reliminary in$estigation is defined as an in3uiry or !ro eeding for the !ur!ose of determining whether there is suffi ient ground to engender a well founded belief that a rime ogni%able by the (egional 2rial +ourt has been ommitted and that the res!ondent is !robably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial# 2he 3uantum of e$iden e now re3uired in !reliminary in$estigation is su h e$iden e suffi ient to @engender a well founded beliefA as to the fa t of the ommission of a rime and the res!ondent*s !robable guilt thereof# A !reliminary in$estigation is not the o asion for the full and e.hausti$e dis!lay of the !arties* e$iden e, it is for the !resentation of su h e$iden e only as may engender a well grounded belief that an offense has been ommitted and that the a used is !robably guilty thereof# 'reliminary in$estigation is generally in3uisitorial, and it is often the only means of dis o$ering the !ersons who may be reasonably harged with a rime, to enable the fis al to !re!are his om!laint or information# 4t is not a trial of the ase on the merits and has no !ur!ose e. e!t that of determining whether a rime has been ommitted and whether there is !robable ause to belie$e that the a used is guilty thereof, and it does not !la e the !erson against whom it is ta&en in 0eo!ardy# 2he institution of a riminal a tion de!ends u!on the sound dis retion of the fis al# 6e has the 3uasi=0udi ial dis retion to determine whether or not a riminal ase should be filed in ourt# 6en e, the general rule is that an in0un tion will not be granted to restrain a riminal !rose ution# 2he ase of 9ro &a, et al# $s# >nrile, et al# ites se$eral e. e!tions to the rule, to witH :a; 2o afford ade3uate !rote tion to the onstitutional rights of the a used, :b; 1hen

ne essary for the orderly administration of 0usti e or to a$oid o!!ression or multi!li ity of a tions, : ; 1hen there is a !re0udi ial 3uestion whi h is sub=0udi e, :d; 1hen the a ts of the offi er are without or in e. ess of authority, :e; 1here the !rose ution is under an in$alid law, ordinan e or regulation, :f; 1hen double 0eo!ardy is learly a!!arent, :g; 1here the ourt has no 0urisdi tion o$er the offense, :h; 1here it is a ase of !erse ution rather than !rose ution, :i; 1here the harges are manifestly false and moti$ated by the lust for $engean e, and :0; 1hen there is learly no !rima fa ie ase against the a used and a motion to 3uash on that ground has been denied# A areful analysis of the ir umstan es obtaining in the !resent ase, howe$er, will readily show that the same does not fall under any of the aforesaid e. e!tions# &i a vs. .o#r o7 A''eals [GR (1(16, ) <c o3er 19(9] En Banc, 2armiento (J): !- concur, 3 concur in result, ! on leave Fac s! On -e ember 1 and ), 19<), !ursuing an Anti=Smut +am!aign initiated by the Mayor of the +ity of Manila, (amon -# 9agatsing, elements of the S!e ial Anti=Dar oti s "rou!, Au.iliary Ser$i es 9ureau, 1estern 'oli e -istri t, 4D' of the Metro!olitan 'oli e For e of Manila, sei%ed and onfis ated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and !eddlers along Manila sidewal&s, maga%ines, !ubli ations and other reading materials belie$ed to be obs ene, !ornogra!hi and inde ent and later burned the sei%ed materials in !ubli at the Uni$ersity belt along +#M# (e to A$enue, Manila, in the !resen e of Mayor 9agatsing and se$eral offi ers and members of $arious student organi%ations# Among the !ubli ations sei%ed, and later burned, was @'inoy 'layboyA maga%ines !ublished and o=edited by 5eo 'ita# On 8 -e ember 19<), 'ita filed a ase for in0un tion with !rayer for issuan e of the writ of !reliminary in0un tion against Mayor 9agatsing and Dar is o +abrera, as su!erintendent of 1estern 'oli e -istri t of the +ity of Manila, see&ing to en0oin and or restrain 9agatsing, +abrera and their agents from onfis ating his maga%ines or from otherwise !re$enting the sale or ir ulation thereof laiming that the maga%ine is a de ent, artisti and edu ational maga%ine whi h is not !er se obs ene, and that the !ubli ation is !rote ted by the +onstitutional guarantees of freedom of s!ee h and of the !ress# On 12 -e ember 19<), 'ita filed an Urgent Motion for issuan e of a tem!orary restraining order against indis riminate sei%ure, onfis ation and burning of !laintiffs @'inoy 'layboyA Maga%ines, !ending hearing on the !etition for !reliminary in0un tion in $iew of Mayor 9agatsing*s !ronoun ement to ontinue the Anti=Smut

15

+am!aign# 2he +ourt granted the tem!orary restraining order on 14 -e ember 19<)# On 5 Canuary 19<4, 'ita filed his Memorandum in su!!ort of the issuan e of the writ of !reliminary in0un tion, raising the issue as to @whether or not the defendants, and or their agents an without a ourt order onfis ate or sei%e !laintiff*s maga%ine before any 0udi ial finding is made on whether said maga%ine is obs ene or not#A 2he restraining order la!sed on ) Canuary 19<4, 'ita filed an urgent motion for issuan e of another restraining order, whi h was o!!osed by 9agatsing on the ground that issuan e of a se ond restraining order would $iolate the (esolution of the Su!reme +ourt dated 11 Canuary 19<), !ro$iding for the 4nterim (ules (elati$e to the 4m!lementation of 9atas 'ambansa 129, whi h !ro$ides that a tem!orary restraining order shall be effe ti$e only for 27 days from date of its issuan e# On 11 Canuary 19<4, the trial ourt issued an Order setting the ase for hearing on 1/ Canuary 19<4 @for the !arties to addu e e$iden e on the 3uestion of whether the !ubli ation R'inoy 'layboy Maga%ine* alleged :si ; sei%ed, onfis ated and or burned by the defendants, are obs en e !er se or not#A On ) February 19<4, the trial ourt !romulgated the Order a!!ealed from denying the motion for a writ of !reliminary in0un tion, and dismissing the ase for la & of merit# 5i&ewise, the A!!ellate +ourt dismissed the a!!eal, holding that the freedom of the !ress is not without restraint, as the state has the right to !rote t so iety from !ornogra!hi literature that is offensi$e to !ubli morals, as indeed we ha$e laws !unishing the author, !ublishers and sellers of obs ene !ubli ations, and that the right against unreasonable sear hes and sei%ures re ogni%es ertain e. e!tions, as when there is onsent to the sear h or sei%ure, or sear h is an in ident to an arrest, or is ondu ted in a $ehi le or mo$able stru ture# 'ita filed the !etition for re$iew with the Su!reme +ourt# "ss#e! 1hether the Mayor an order the sei%ure of @obs eneA materials as a result of an anti= smut am!aign# $el%! 2he +ourt is not on$in ed that 9agatsing and +abrera ha$e shown the re3uired !roof to 0ustify a ban and to warrant onfis ation of the literature for whi h mandatory in0un tion had been sought below# First of all, they were not !ossessed of a lawful ourt orderH :1; finding the said materials to be !ornogra!hy, and :2; authori%ing them to arry out a sear h and sei%ure, by way of a sear h warrant# 2he fa t that the former Mayor*s a t was san tioned by @!oli e !owerA is no li ense to sei%e !ro!erty in disregard of due !ro ess# 'residential -e rees 9/7 and 9/9 are, arguably, !oli e !ower measures, but they are not, by themsel$es, authorities for high=handed a ts#

2hey do not e.em!t our law enfor ers, in arrying out the de ree of the twin !residential issuan es, from the ommandments of the +onstitution, the right to due !ro ess of law and the right against unreasonable sear hes and sei%ures, s!e ifi ally# Signifi antly, the -e rees themsel$es lay down !ro edures for im!lementation# 4t is basi that sear hes and sei%ures may be done only through a 0udi ial warrant, otherwise, they be ome unreasonable and sub0e t to hallenge# 2he +ourt finds greater reason to re!robate the 3uestioned raid, in the om!lete absen e of a warrant, $alid or in$alid# 2he fa t that the !resent ase in$ol$es an obs enity ra! ma&es it no different from 9urgos $s# +hief of Staff AF', a !oliti al ase, be ause s!ee h is s!ee h, whether !oliti al or @obs ene#A Although the +ourt is not ruling out warrantless sear hes, the sear h must ha$e been an in ident to a lawful arrest, and the arrest must be on a ount of a rime ommitted# 6ere, no !arty has been harged, nor are su h harges being readied against any !arty, under Arti le 271, as amended, of the (e$ised 'enal +ode# 2here is no @a usedA here to s!ea& of, who ought to be @!unishedA# Further, to say that the Mayor ould ha$e $alidly ordered the raid :as a result of an anti= smut am!aign; without a lawful sear h warrant be ause, in his o!inion, @$iolation of !enal lawsA has been ommitted, is to ma&e the Mayor 0udge, 0ury, and e.e utioner rolled into one# 2hus, the ourt mae a resume, to witH :1; 2he authorities must a!!ly for the issuan e of a sear h warrant from a 0udge, if in their o!inion, an obs enity ra! is in order, :2; 2he authorities must on$in e the ourt that the materials sought to be sei%ed are @obs eneA, and !ose a lear and !resent danger of an e$il substanti$e enough to warrant State interferen e and a tion, :); 2he 0udge must determine whether or not the same are indeed @obs eneHA the 3uestion is to be resol$ed on a ase=to= ase basis and on 6is 6onor*s sound dis retion# :4; 4f, in the o!inion of the ourt, !robable ause e.ists, it may issue the sear h warrant !rayed for, :5; 2he !ro!er suit is then brought in the ourt under Arti le 271 of the (e$ised 'enal +ode, and :/; Any on$i tion is sub0e t to a!!eal# 2he a!!ellate ourt may assess whether or not the !ro!erties sei%ed are indeed @obs ene#A 2he +ourt states, howe$er, that @these do not fore lose, howe$er, defenses under the +onstitution or a!!li able statutes, or remedies against abuse of offi ial !ower under the +i$il +ode or the (e$ised 'enal ode#A A3%#la vs. G#iani [GR 11((21, 1( Fe3r#ary 2111] Third Division, .on4aga1+eyes (J): 4 concur Fac s! On 24 Cune 1994, a om!laint for murder :4S 94=1)/1; was filed before the +riminal 4n$estigation Ser$i e +ommand, A(MM

1/

(egional Offi e E44 against Mayor 9ai Unggie -# Abdula and Odin Abdula and / other !ersons in onne tion with the death of a ertain Abdul -imalen, the former +OM>5>+ (egistrar of Jabuntalan, Maguindanao# 2he om!laint alleged that the Abdulas !aid the / other !ersons the total amount of '277,777#77 for the death of -imalen# A ting on this om!laint, the 'ro$in ial 'rose utor of Maguindanao, Sali & U# 'anda, in a (esolution dated 22 August 1994, dismissed the harges of murder against the Abdulas and 5 other res!ondents on a finding that there was no !rima fa ie ase for murder against them# 'rose utor 'anda, howe$er, re ommended the filing of an information for murder against one of the res!ondents, a ertain Jasan Mama# 'ursuant to this (esolution, an information for murder was thereafter filed against Jasan Mama before the sala of Cudge Ca!al M# "uiani# 4n an Order dated 1) Se!tember 1994, the Cudge ordered that the ase :+riminal +ase 2))2;, be returned to the 'ro$in ial 'rose utor for further in$estigation# 4n this Order, the 0udge noted that although there were < res!ondents in the murder ase, the information filed with the ourt @ harged only 1 of the < res!ondents in the name of Jasan Mama without the ne essary resolution re3uired under Se tion 4, (ule 112 of the (e$ised (ules of +ourt to show how the in$estigating !rose utor arri$ed at su h a on lusion#A As su h, the 0udge reasons, the trial ourt annot issue the warrant of arrest against Jasan Mama# U!on the return of the re ords of the ase to the Offi e of the 'ro$in ial 'rose utor for Maguindanao, it was assigned to 2nd Assistant 'rose utor >no& 2# -imaraw for further in$estigation# 4n addition to the e$iden e !resented during the initial in$estigation of the murder harge, two new affida$its of witnesses were submitted to su!!ort the harge of murder against the Abdulas and the other res!ondents in the murder om!laint# 2hus, 'rose utor -imaraw treated the same as a re=filing of the murder harge and !ursuant to law, issued sub!oena to the res!ondents named therein# On / -e ember 1994, the Abdulas submitted and filed their 0oint ounter=affida$its# After e$aluation of the e$iden e, 'rose utor -imaraw, in a (esolution dated 2< -e ember 1994, found a !rima fa ie ase for murder against the Abdulas and ) other res!ondents# 6e thus re ommended the filing of harges against the Abdulas, as !rin i!als by indu ement, and against the ) others, as !rin i!als by dire t !arti i!ation# 5i&ewise in this 2< -e ember 1994 (esolution, 'ro$in ial 'rose utor Sali & U# 'anda, who ondu ted the earlier !reliminary in$estigation of the murder harge, added a notation stating that he was inhibiting himself from the ase and authori%ing the in$estigating !rose utor to dis!ose of the ase without his a!!ro$al# 2he reasons he ited were that the ase was !re$iously handled by

him and that the $i tim was the father=in=law of his son# On 2 Canuary 1995, an information for murder dated 2< -e ember 1994 was filed against the Abdulas and Jasan Mama, +uen o Usman and Cun Mama before 9ran h 14 of the (egional 2rial +ourt of +otabato +ity, then the sala of Cudge "uiani# 2his information was signed by in$estigating !rose utor >no& 2# -imaraw# A notation was li&ewise made on the information by 'ro$in ial 'rose utor 'anda, whi h e.!lained the reason for his inhibition# 2he following day, the 0udge issued a warrant for the arrest of the Abdulas# U!on learning of the issuan e of the said warrant, the Abdulas filed on 4 Canuary 1995 an Urgent >.=!arte Motion for the setting aside of the warrant of arrest on 4 Canuary 1995# 4n this motion, the Abdulas argued that the enfor ement of the warrant of arrest should be held in abeyan e onsidering that the information was !rematurely filed and that the Abdulas intended to file a !etition for re$iew with the -e!artment of Custi e# A !etition for re$iew was filed by the Abdulas with the -e!artment of Custi e on 11 Canuary 1995# -es!ite said filing, the 0udge did not a t u!on the Abdulas* !ending Motion to Set Aside the 1arrant of Arrest# 2he Abdulas filed the 'etition for +ertiorari and 'rohibition with the Su!reme +ourt# "ss#e! 1hether the 0udge may rely u!on the findings of the !rose utor in determining !robable ause in the issuan e of sear h or arrest warrant# $el%! 2he 19<8 +onstitution re3uires the 0udge to determine !robable ause @!ersonally,A a re3uirement whi h does not a!!ear in the orres!onding !ro$isions of our !re$ious onstitutions# 2his em!hasis e$in es the intent of the framers to !la e a greater degree of res!onsibility u!on trial 0udges than that im!osed under !re$ious +onstitutions# 6erein, the Cudge admits that he issued the 3uestioned warrant as there was @no reason for :him; to doubt the $alidity of the ertifi ation made by the Assistant 'rose utor that a !reliminary in$estigation was ondu ted and that !robable ause was found to e.ist as against those harged in the information filed#A 2he statement is an admission that the Cudge relied solely and om!letely on the ertifi ation made by the fis al that !robable ause e.ists as against those harged in the information and issued the hallenged warrant of arrest on the sole basis of the !rose utor*s findings and re ommendations# 6e ado!ted the 0udgment of the !rose utor regarding the e.isten e of !robable ause as his own# +learly, the 0udge, by merely stating that he had no reason to doubt the $alidity of the ertifi ation made by the in$estigating !rose utor has abdi ated his duty under the +onstitution to determine on his own the issue of !robable ause before issuing

18

a warrant of arrest# +onse3uently, the warrant of arrest should be de lared null and $oid# &asion =%a. %e Garcia vs. Locsin [GR 4)9)1, 21 *#ne 193(] 5irst Division, 6aurel (J): & concur Fac s! On 17 Do$ember 19)4, Mariano "# Almeda, an agent of the Anti=Usury 9oard, obtained from the 0usti e of the !ea e of 2arla , 2arla , a sear h warrant ommanding any offi er of the law to sear h the !erson, house or store of 5eona 'asion Fda# de "ar ia at Fi toria, 2arla , for @ ertain boo&s, lists, hits, re ei!ts, do uments and other !a!ers relating to her a ti$ities as usurer#A 2he sear h warrant was issued u!on an affida$it gi$en by the said Almeda @that he has and there is 0ust and !robable ause to belie$e and he does belie$e that 5eona 'asion de "ar ia &ee!s and on eals in her house and store at Fi toria, 2arla , ertain boo&s, lists, hits, re ei!ts, do uments, and other !a!ers relating to her a ti$ities as usurer, all of whi h is ontrary to the statute in su h ases made and !ro$ided#A On the same date, Almeda, a om!anied by a a!tain of the 'hili!!ine +onstabulary, went to the offi e of 'asion de "ar ia in Fi toria, 2arla and, after showing the sear h warrant to the latter*s boo&&ee!er, Alfredo Salas, and, without 'asion de "ar ia*s !resen e who was ill and onfined at the time, !ro eeded with the e.e ution thereof# 2wo !a &ages of re ords and a lo &ed filing abinet ontaining se$eral !a!ers and do uments were sei%ed by Almeda and a re ei!t therefor issued by him to Salas# 2he !a!ers and do uments sei%ed were &e!t for a onsiderable length of time by the Anti=Usury 9oard and thereafter were turned o$er by it to the !ro$in ial fis al Feli. 4m!erial, who subse3uently filed, in the +ourt of First 4nstan e :+F4; of 2arla , / se!arate riminal ases against 'asion de "ar ia for $iolation of the Anti=Usury 5aw# On se$eral o asions, after sei%ure, 'asion de "ar ia, through ounsel, demanded from the Anti=Usury 9oard the return of the do uments sei%ed# On Canuary 8, and, by motion, on 4 Cune 19)8, the legality of the sear h warrant was hallenged by 'asion de "ar ia*s ounsel in the / riminal ases and the de$olution of the do uments demanded# 9y resolution of 5 O tober 19)8, Cudge -iego 5o sin :+F4; denied 'asion de gar ia*s motion of Cune 4 for the reason that though the sear h warrant was illegal, there was a wai$er on the latter*s !art# A motion for re onsideration was !resented but was denied by order of ) Canuary 19)<# 'asion de "ar ia registered her e. e!tion# "ss#e! 1hether the la & of !ersonal e.amination of witnesses renders the warrant $oid#

$el%! Freedom from unreasonable sear hes and sei%ures is de lared a !o!ular right and for a sear h warrant to be $alid, :1; it must be issued u!on !robable ause, :2; the !robable ause must be determined by the 0udge himself and not by the a!!li ant or any other !erson, :); in the determination of !robable ause, the 0udge must e.amine, under oath or affirmation, the om!lainant and su h witnesses as the latter may !rodu e, and :4; the warrant issued must !arti ularly des ribe the !la e to be sear hed and !ersons or things to be sei%ed# 2hese re3uirements are om!lemented by the +ode of +riminal 'ro edure, !arti ularly with referen e to the duration of the $alidity of the sear h warrant and the obligation of the offi er sei%ing the !ro!erty to deli$er the same to the orres!onding ourt# 6erein, the e.isten e of !robable ause was determined not by the 0udge himself but by the a!!li ant# All that the 0udge did was to a e!t as true the affida$it made by agent Almeda# 6e did not de ide for himself# 4t does not a!!ear that he e.amined the a!!li ant and his witnesses, if any# >$en a e!ting the des ri!tion of the !ro!erties to be sei%ed to be suffi ient and on the assum!tion that the re ei!t issued is suffi iently detailed within the meaning of the law, the !ro!erties sei%ed were not deli$ered to the ourt whi h issued the warrant, as re3uired by law# 4nstead, they were turned o$er to the !ro$in ial fis al and used by him in building u! ases against 'asion de "ar ia# +onsidering that at the time the warrant was issued there was no ase !ending against 'asion de "ar ia, the a$erment that the warrant was issued !rimarily for e.!loration !ur!oses is not without basis# 2he sear h warrant was illegally issued by the 0usti e of the !ea e of 2arla , 2arla # 4n any e$ent, the failure on the !art of 'asion de "ar ia and her boo&&ee!er to resist or ob0e t to the e.e ution of the warrant does not onstitute an im!lied wai$er of onstitutional right# 4t is, as Cudge +ooley obser$es, but a submission to the authority of the law# As the onstitutional guaranty is not de!endent u!on any affirmati$e a t of the iti%en, the ourts do not !la e the iti%en in the !osition of either ontesting an offi er*s authority by for e, or wai$ing his onstitutional rights, but instead they hold that a !ea eful submission to a sear h or sei%ure is not a onsent or an in$itation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the su!rema y of the law# >ee 4#e ?oy vs. Al;e%a [GR 42121, 1) *#ne 1941] 6aurel (J): 3 concur, ! concurs in result Fac s! 4n res!onse to a sworn a!!li ation of Mariano "# Almeda, hief agent of the Anti= Usury 9oard, dated 5 May 19)<, the 0usti e of the !ea e of Sagay, O idental Degros, after ta&ing the testimony of a!!li ant*s witness, Cose

1<

>strada, s!e ial agent of the Anti=Usury 9oard, issued on the same date a sear h warrant ommanding any !ea e offi er to sear h during day time the store and !remises o u!ied by Sam Sing G +o#, situated at Sagay, O idental Degros, as well as the !erson of said Sam Sing G +o#, and to sei%e the do uments, noteboo&s, lists, re ei!ts and !romissory notes being used by said Sam Sing G +o# in onne tion with their a ti$ities of lending money at usurious rates of interest in $iolation of law, or su h as may be found, and to bring them forthwith before the aforesaid 0usti e of the !ea e of Sagay# On the same date, at 17H)7 a# m#, sear h was a ordingly made by Mariano "# Almeda, Cose >strada, 2 internal re$enue agents and 2 members of the 'hili!!ine Army, who sei%ed ertain re ei!t boo&s, $ales or !romissory notes, hits, noteboo&s, 0ournal boo&, and olle tion list belonging to Sam Sing G +o# and enumerated in the in$entory re ei!t issued by Mariano "# Almeda to the owner of the do uments, !a!ers and arti les sei%ed# 4mmediately after the sear h and sei%ure thus effe ted, Mariano "# Almeda filed a return with the 0usti e of the !ea e of Sagay together# 1ith a re3uest that the offi e of the Anti=Usury 9oard be allowed to retain !ossession of the arti les sei%ed for e.amination, !ursuant to se tion 4 of A t 4179, whi h re3uest was granted# Under the date of 11 Mar h 19)9, "odofredo '# >s alona, ounsel for Sam Sing G +o# filed a motion with the +ourt of First 4nstan e :+F4; of O idental Degros !raying that the sear h warrant and the sei%ure effe ted thereunder be de lared illegal and set aside and that the arti les in 3uestion be ordered returned to Sam Sing G +o#, whi h motion was denied in the order dated 24 Culy 19)9# A similar motion was !resented to the 0usti e of the !ea e of Sagay on 28 O tober 19)9 but was denied the ne.t day# Meanwhile, an information dated )7 Se!tember 19)9 had been filed in the +F4 O idental Degros, harging See Fo & alias See Sue Joy, S# 2i! and A# Sing, managers of Sam Sing G +o#, with a $iolation of A t 2/55# 9efore the riminal ase ould be tried, See Sue Joy and See 2i! filed the !etition with the Su!reme +ourt on / Do$ember 19)9# 2he !etition is grounded on the !ro!ositions :1; that the sear h warrant issued on 2 May 19)<, by the 0usti e of the !ea e of Sagay and the sei%ure a om!lished thereunder are illegal, be ause the warrant was issued three days ahead of the a!!li ation therefor and of the affida$it of the Cose >strada whi h is insuffi ient in itself to 0ustify the issuan e of a sear h warrant, and be ause the issuan e of said warrant manifestly ontra$enes the mandatory !ro$isions both of se tion 1, !aragra!h ), of Arti le 444 of the +onstitution and of se tion 98 of "eneral Orders 5<, and :2; that the sei%ure of the aforesaid arti les by means of a sear h warrant for the !ur!ose of using them as e$iden e in the riminal ase against the

a used, is un onstitutional be ause the warrant thereby be omes unreasonable and amounts to a $iolation of the onstitutional !rohibition against om!elling the a used to testify against themsel$es# "ss#e! 1hether the a!!li ation of the sear h warrant is su!!orted by the !ersonal &nowledge of the witness, besides the a!!li ant, for the 0udge to determine !robable ause in issuing the warrant# $el%! Stri t obser$an e of the formalities under se tion 1, !aragra!h ), of Arti le 444 of the +onstitution and of se tion 98 of "eneral Orders 5< was followed# 2he a!!li ant Mariano "# Almeda, in his a!!li ation, swore that @he made his own !ersonal in$estigation and as ertained that Sam Sing G +o# is lending money without li ense, harging usurious rate of interest and is &ee!ing, utili%ing and on ealing in the store and !remises o u!ied by it situated at Sagay, O idental Degros, do uments, noteboo&s, lists, re ei!ts, !romissory notes, and boo& of a ounts and re ords, all of whi h are being used by it in onne tion with its a ti$ities of lending money at usurious rate of interest in $iolation of the Usury 5aw#A 4n turn, the witness Cose >strada, in his testimony before the 0usti e of the !ea e of Sagay, swore that he &new that Sam Sing G +o# was lending money without li ense and harging usurious rate of interest, be ause he !ersonally in$estigated the $i tims who had se ured loans from said Sam Sing G +o# and were harged usurious rate of interest, that he &new that the said Sam Sing G +o# was &ee!ing and using boo&s of a ounts and re ords ontaining its transa tions relati$e its a ti$ities as money lender and the entries of the interest !aid by its debtors, be ause he saw the said Sam Sing G d ma&e entries and re ords of their debts and the interest !aid thereon# As both Mariano "# Almeda and Cose >strada swore that they had !ersonal &nowledge, their affida$its were suffi ient for, thereunder, they ould be held liable for !er0ury if the fa ts would turn out to be not as their were stated under oath# 2hat the e.isten e of !robable ause had been determined by the 0usti e of the !ea e of Sagay before issuing the sear h warrant om!lained of, is shown by the following statement in the warrant itself, to witH @After e.amination under oath of the om!lainant, Mariano "# Almeda, +hief Agent of the Anti= Usury 9oard, -e!artment of Custi e and S!e ial Agent of the 'hili!!ine Army, Manila, and the witness he !resented, # # # and this +ourt, finding that there is 0ust and !robable ause to belie$e as it does belie$e, that the abo$e des ribed arti les, relating to the a ti$ities of said Sam Sing G +o# of lending money at usurious rate of interest, are being utili%ed and &e!t and on ealed at its store and !remises

19

o u!ied by said Sam Sing G +o#, all in $iolation of law#A Alvarez vs. .o#r o7 Firs "ns ance o7 @aya3as [GR 4)3)(, 29 *an#ary 1932] 5irst Division, 7m#erial (J): 4 concur Fac s! On ) Cune 19)/, the hief of the se ret ser$i e of the Anti=Usury 9oard, of the -e!artment of Custi e, !resented to Cudge >duardo "utierre% -a$id then !residing o$er the +ourt of First 4nstan e of 2ayabas, an affida$it alleging that a ording to reliable information, Dar iso Al$are% &e!t in his house in 4nfanta, 2ayabas, boo&s, do uments, re ei!ts, lists, hits and other !a!ers used by him in onne tion with his a ti$ities as a moneylender, harging usurious rates of interest in $iolation of the law# 4n his oath at the end of the affida$it, the hief of the se ret ser$i e stated that his answers to the 3uestions were orre t to the best of his &nowledge and belief# 6e did not swear to the truth of his statements u!on his own &nowledge of the fa ts but u!on the information re ei$ed by him from a reliable !erson# U!on the affida$it the 0udge, on said date, issued the warrant whi h is the sub0e t matter of the !etition, ordering the sear h of the Al$are%*s house at any time of the day or night, the sei%ure of the boo&s and do uments and the immediate deli$ery thereof to him to be dis!osed of in a ordan e with the law# 1ith said warrant, se$eral agents of the Anti=Usury 9oard entered Al$are%*s store and residen e at 8H77 !#m# of 4 Cune 19)/, and sei%ed and too& !ossession of the following arti lesH internal re$enue li enses for the years 19)) to 19)/, 1 ledger, 2 0ournals, 2 ashboo&s, 9 order boo&s, 4 noteboo&s, 4 he & stubs, 2 memorandums, ) ban&boo&s, 2 ontra ts, 4 stubs, 4< stubs of !ur hases of o!ra, 2 in$entories, 2 bundles of bills of lading, 1 bundle of redit re ei!ts, 1 bundle of stubs of !ur hases of o!ra, 2 !a &ages of orres!onden e, 1 re ei!t boo& belonging to 5uis Fernande%, 14 bundles of in$oi es and other !a!ers, many do uments and loan ontra ts with se urity and !romissory notes, 574 hits, !romissory notes and stubs of used he &s of the 6ong&ong G Shanghai 9an&ing +or!oration :6S9+;# 2he sear h for and sei%ure of said arti les were made with the o!!osition of Al$are% who stated his !rotest below the in$entories on the ground that the agents sei%ed e$en the originals of the do uments# As the arti les had not been brought immediately to the 0udge who issued the sear h warrant, Al$are%, through his attorney, filed a motion on < Cune 19)/, !raying that the agent >milio 5# Siong o, or any other agent, be ordered immediately to de!osit all the sei%ed arti les in the offi e of the ler& of ourt and that said agent be de lared guilty of ontem!t for ha$ing disobeyed the order of the ourt# On said date the ourt issued an order

dire ting Siong o to de!osit all the arti les sei%ed within 24 hours from the re ei!t of noti e thereof and gi$ing him a !eriod of 5 days within whi h to show ause why he should not be !unished for ontem!t of ourt# On 17 Cune, Attorney Arsenio (odrigue%, re!resenting the Anti=Usury 9oard, filed a motion !raying that the order of the <th of said month be set aside and that the Anti=Usury 9oard be authori%ed to retain the arti les sei%ed for a !eriod of )7 days for the ne essary in$estigation# On Cune 25, the ourt issued an order re3uiring agent Siong o forthwith to file the sear h warrant and the affida$it in the ourt, together with the !ro eedings ta&en by him, and to !resent an in$entory duly $erified by oath of all the arti les sei%ed# On Culy 2, the attorney for the !etitioner filed a !etition alleging that the sear h warrant issued was illegal and that it had not yet been returned to date together with the !ro eedings ta&en in onne tion therewith, and !raying that said warrant be an elled, that an order be issued dire ting the return of all the arti les sei%ed to Al$are%, that the agent who sei%ed them be de lared guilty of ontem!t of ourt, and that harges be filed against him for abuse of authority# On Se!tember 17, the ourt issued an order holdingH that the sear h warrant was obtained and issued in a ordan e with the law, that it had been duly om!lied with and, onse3uently, should not be an elled, and that agent Siong o did not ommit any ontem!t of ourt and must, therefore, be e.onerated, and ordering the hief of the Anti=Usury 9oard in Manila to show ause, if any, within the une.tendible !eriod of 2 days from the date of noti e of said order, why all the arti les sei%ed a!!earing in the in$entory should not be returned to Al$are%# 2he assistant hief of the Anti=Usury 9oard of the -e!artment of Custi e filed a motion !raying, for the reasons stated therein, that the arti les sei%ed be ordered retained for the !ur!ose of ondu ting an in$estigation of the $iolation of the Anti=Usury 5aw ommitted by Al$are%# On O tober 17, said offi ial again filed another motion alleging that he needed /7 days to e.amine the do uments and !a!ers sei%ed, whi h are designated on !ages 1 to 4 of the in$entory by Dos# 5, 17, 1/, 2), 25=28, )7=)1 , )4, )/=4) and 45, and !raying that he be granted said !eriod of /7 days# 4n an order of O tober 1/, the ourt granted him the !eriod of /7 days to in$estigate said 19 do uments# Al$are%, herein, as&s that the sear h warrant as well as the order authori%ing the agents of the Anti=Usury 9oard to retain the arti les sei%ed, be de lared illegal and set aside, and !rays that all the arti les in 3uestion be returned to him# "ss#e! 1hether the sear h warrant issued by the ourt is illegal be ause it has been based u!on the affida$it of agent Almeda in whose oath he de lared that he had no !ersonal

27

&nowledge of the fa ts whi h were to ser$e as a basis for the issuan e of the warrant but that he had &nowledge thereof through mere information se ured from a !erson whom he onsidered reliable, and that it is illegal as it was not su!!orted by other affida$its aside from that made by the a!!li ant# $el%! Se tion 1, !aragra!h ), of Arti le 444 of the +onstitution and Se tion 98 of "eneral Orders 5< re3uire that there be not only !robable ause before the issuan e of a sear h warrant but that the sear h warrant must be based u!on an a!!li ation su!!orted by oath of the a!!li ant and the witnesses he may !rodu e# 4n its broadest sense, an oath in ludes any form of attestation by whi h a !arty signifies that he is bound in ons ien e to !erform an a t faithfully and truthfully, and it is sometimes defined as an outward !ledge gi$en by the !erson ta&ing it that his attestation or !romise is made under an immediate sense of his res!onsibility to "od# 2he oath re3uired must refer to the truth of the fa ts within the !ersonal &nowledge of the !etitioner or his witnesses, be ause the !ur!ose thereof is to on$in e the ommitting magistrate, not the indi$idual ma&ing the affida$it and see&ing the issuan e of the warrant, of the e.isten e of !robable ause# 2he true test of suffi ien y of an affida$it to warrant issuan e of a sear h warrant is whether it has been drawn in su h a manner that !er0ury ould be harged thereon and affiant be held liable for damages aused# 2he affida$it, whi h ser$ed as the e. lusi$e basis of the sear h warrant, is insuffi ient and fatally defe ti$e by reason of the manner in whi h the oath was made, and therefore, the sear h warrant and the subse3uent sei%ure of the boo&s, do uments and other !a!ers are illegal# Further, it is the !ra ti e in this 0urisdi tion to atta h the affida$it of at least the a!!li ant or om!lainant to the a!!li ation# 4t is admitted that the 0udge who issued the sear h warrant in this ase, relied e. lusi$ely u!on the affida$it made by agent Almeda and that he did not re3uire nor ta&e the de!osition of any other witness# Deither the +onstitution nor "eneral Orders 5< !ro$ides that it is of im!erati$e ne essity to ta&e the de!ositions of the witnesses to be !resented by the a!!li ant or om!lainant in addition to the affida$it of the latter# 2he !ur!ose of both in re3uiring the !resentation of de!ositions is nothing more than to satisfy the ommitting magistrate of the e.isten e of !robable ause# 2herefore, if the affida$it of the a!!li ant or om!lainant is suffi ient, the 0udge may dis!ense with that of other witnesses# 4nasmu h as the affida$it of the agent was insuffi ient be ause his &nowledge of the fa ts was not !ersonal but merely hearsay, it is the duty of the 0udge to re3uire the affida$it of one or more witnesses for the !ur!ose of determining the e.isten e of !robable ause to

warrant the issuan e of the sear h warrant# 1hen the affida$it of the a!!li ant or om!lainant ontains suffi ient fa ts within his !ersonal and dire t &nowledge, it is suffi ient if the 0udge is satisfied that there e.ists !robable ause, when the a!!li ant*s &nowledge of the fa ts is mere hearsay, the affida$it of one or more witnesses ha$ing a !ersonal &nowledge of the fa ts is ne essary# 2hus the warrant issued is li&ewise illegal be ause it was based only on the affida$it of the agent who had no !ersonal &nowledge of the fa ts# Ma a vs. +ayona [GR )1221, 26 Marc, 19(4] 2econd Division, de %astro (J): 3 concur, ( concur in result, ! too) no #art Fac s! Soriano Mata was a used under 'residential -e ree :'-; <17, as amended by '- 1)7/, the information against him alleging that Soriano Mata offered, too& and arranged bets on the Cai Alai game by @selling illegal ti &ets &nown as RMasiao ti &ets* without any authority from the 'hili!!ine Cai Alai G Amusement +or!oration or from the go$ernment authorities on erned#A Mata laimed that during the hearing of the ase, he dis o$ered that nowhere from the re ords of the said ase ould be found the sear h warrant and other !ertinent !a!ers onne ted to the issuan e of the same, so that he had to in3uire from the +ity Fis al its whereabouts, and to whi h in3uiry Cudge Cose!hine J# 9ayona, !residing Cufe of the +ity +ourt of Ormo re!lied, @it is with the ourtA# 2he Cudge then handed the re ords to the Fis al who atta hed them to the re ords# 2his led Mata to file a motion to 3uash and annul the sear h warrant and for the return of the arti les sei%ed, iting and in$o&ing, among others, Se tion 4 of (ule 12/ of the (e$ised (ules of +ourt# 2he motion was denied by the Cudge on 1 Mar h 1989, stating that the ourt has made a thorough in$estigation and e.amination under oath of 9ernardo U# "oles and (eynaldo 2# Mayote, members of the 4ntelligen e Se tion of )52nd '+ +o#B'oli e -istri t 44 4D', that in fa t the ourt made a ertifi ation to that effe t, and that the fa t that do uments relating to the sear h warrant were not atta hed immediately to the re ord of the riminal ase is of no moment, onsidering that the rule does not s!e ify when these do uments are to be atta hed to the re ords# Mata*s motion for re onsideration of the aforesaid order ha$ing been denied, he ame to the Su!reme +ourt, with the !etition for ertiorari, !raying, among others, that the +ourt de lare the sear h warrant to be in$alid for its alleged failure to om!ly with the re3uisites of the +onstitution and the (ules of +ourt, and that all the arti les onfis ated under su h warrant as inadmissible as e$iden e in the ase, or in any !ro eedings on the matter#

21

"ss#e! 1hether the 0udge must before issuing the warrant !ersonally e.amine on oath or affirmation the om!lainant and any witnesses he may !rodu e and ta&e their de!ositions in writing, and atta h them to the re ord, in addition to any affida$its !resented to him# $el%! Under the +onstitution @no sear h warrant shall issue but u!on !robable ause to be determined by the Cudge or su h other res!onsible offi er as may be authori%ed by law after e.amination under oath or affirmation of the om!lainant and the witnesses he may !rodu eA# More em!hati and detailed is the im!lementing rule of the onstitutional in0un tion, 2he (ules !ro$ide that the 0udge must before issuing the warrant !ersonally e.amine on oath or affirmation the om!lainant and any witnesses he may !rodu e and ta&e their de!ositions in writing, and atta h them to the re ord, in addition to any affida$its !resented to him# Mere affida$its of the om!lainant and his witnesses are thus not suffi ient# 2he e.amining Cudge has to ta&e de!ositions in writing of the om!lainant and the witnesses he may !rodu e and to atta h them to the re ord# Su h written de!osition is ne essary in order that the Cudge may be able to !ro!erly determine the e.isten e or none.isten e of the !robable ause, to hold liable for !er0ury the !erson gi$ing it if it will be found later that his de larations are false# 1e, therefore, hold that the sear h warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of the Cudge to onform with the essential re3uisites of ta&ing the de!ositions in writing and atta hing them to the re ord, rendering the sear h warrant in$alid# <laez vs. &eo'le o7 ,e &,ili''ines [GR 2(342-49, 9 Aove;3er 19(2] 5irst Division, %ru4 (J): 4 concur Fac s! Adolfo Olaes and 5inda M# +ru% were harged for $iolation of the -angerous -rugs A t# Olaes and +ru% filed a !etition for ertiorari and !rohibition with !reliminary in0un tion, hallenging the admission by Cudge Ali ia 5# Santos :in her a!a ity as 'residing Cudge of the (egional 2rial +ourt of Olonga!o +ity, 9ran h 8); of e$iden e sei%ed by $irtue of an allegedly in$alid sear h warrant and of an e.tra0udi ial onfession ta&en from them without a ording them the right to assistan e of ounsel, and thus see& to restrain further !ro eedings in the riminal ase against them and as& that they be a 3uitted with the setting aside of the 3uestioned orders :the fa ts do not !ro$ide the dis!osition of the said orders;# Olaes and +ru% laim that the sear h warrant issued by the 0udge is un onstitutional be ause it does not indi ate the s!e ifi offense they are su!!osed to ha$e ommitted# 2here is, therefore,

a ording to them, no $alid finding of !robable ause as a 0ustifi ation for the issuan e of the said warrant in onformity with the 9ill of (ights# "ss#e! 1hether the la & of s!e ifi se tion of the -angerous -rugs A t renders the a!tion $ague, and negate the laim that the s!e ifi offense was ommitted to ser$e as basis for the finding of !robable ause# $el%! Do# 2he sear h warrant issued does not ome under the stri tures of the Stonehill do trine# 1hile in the ase ited, there was a bare referen e to the laws in general, without any s!e ifi ation of the !arti ular se tions thereof that were alleged to ha$e been $iolated out of the hundreds of !rohibitions ontained in su h odifi ations, there is no similar ambiguity herein# 1hile it is true that the a!tion of the sear h warrant states that it is in onne tion with @Fiolation of (A /425, otherwise &nown as the -angerous -rugs A ts of 1982,A it is learly re ited in the te.t thereof that @2here is !robable ause to belie$e that Adolfo Olaes alias R-ebie* and alias R9aby* of Do# /2< +omia St#, Filtration, Sta# (ita, Olonga!o +ity, has in their !ossession and ontrol and ustody of mari0uana dried stal&sBlea$esBseedsB igarettes and other regulatedB!rohibited and e.em!t nar oti s !re!arations whi h is the sub0e t of the offense stated abo$e#A Although the s!e ifi se tion of the -angerous -rugs A t is not !in!ointed, there is no 3uestion at all of the s!e ifi offense alleged to ha$e been ommitted as a basis for the finding of !robable ause# 2he sear h warrant also satisfies the re3uirement in the 9ill of (ights of the !arti ularity of the des ri!tion to be made of the @!la e to be sear hed and the !ersons or things to be sei%ed# &r#%en e vs. Dayri [GR Dece;3er En Banc, 8adilla (J): !4 concur (2(21, 14 19(9]

Fac s! On )1 O tober 19<8, 'BMa0or Alladin -imagmaliw, +hief of the 4ntelligen e S!e ial A tion -i$ision :4SA-; of the 1estern 'oli e -istri t :1'-;, filed with the (egional 2rial +ourt :(2+; of Manila, 9ran h )), !resided o$er by Cudge Abelardo -ayrit, now Asso iate Custi e of the +ourt of A!!eals, an a!!li ation for the issuan e of a sear h warrant :Sear h 1arrant <8=14; for $iolation of 'residential -e ree 1<// :4llegal 'ossession of Firearms, et #; entitled @'eo!le of the 'hili!!ines $s# Demesio ># 'rudente#A On the same day, the Cudge issued the Sear h 1arrant, ommanding -imagmaliw @to ma&e an immediate sear h at any time in the day or night of the !remises of 'olyte hni Uni$ersity of the 'hili!!ines, more !arti ularly :a; offi es of the -e!artment of Military S ien e

22

and 2a ti s at the ground floor and other rooms at the ground floor, :b; offi e of the 'resident, -r# Demesio 'rudente at 'U', Se ond Floor and other rooms at the se ond floor, and forthwith sei%e and ta&e !ossession of the following !ersonal !ro!erties, to witH :a; M 1/ Armalites with ammunition, :b; #)< and #45 +aliber handguns and !istols, : ; e.!losi$es and hand grenades, and :d; assorted wea!ons with ammunitions#A On 1 Do$ember 19<8, a Sunday and All Saints -ay, the sear h warrant was enfor ed by some 277 1'- o!erati$es led by 'B+ol# >dgar -ula 2orre, -e!uty Su!erintendent, 1'-, and 'BMa0or (omeo Maganto, 're in t < +ommander# 4n his affida$it, dated 2 Do$ember 19<8, (i ardo Abando y Susay, a member of the sear hing team, alleged that he found in the drawer of a abinet inside the wash room of -r# 'rudente*s offi e a bulging brown en$elo!e with ) li$e fragmentation hand grenades se!arately wra!!ed with old news!a!ers# On / Do$ember 19<8, 'rudente mo$ed to 3uash the sear h warrant# 6e laimed that :1; the om!lainant*s lone witness, 5t# Florenio +# Angeles, had no !ersonal &nowledge of the fa ts whi h formed the basis for the issuan e of the sear h warrant, :2; the e.amination of the said witness was not in the form of sear hing 3uestions and answers, :); the sear h warrant was a general warrant, for the reason that it did not !arti ularly des ribe the !la e to be sear hed and that it failed to harge one s!e ifi offense, and :4; the sear h warrant was issued in $iolation of +ir ular 19 of the Su!reme +ourt in that the om!lainant failed to allege under oath that the issuan e of the sear h warrant on a Saturday was urgent# On 9 Mar h 19<<, the Cudge issued an order, denying 'rudente*s motion and su!!lemental motion to 3uash# 'rudente*s motion for re onsideration was li&ewise denied in the order dated 27 A!ril 19<<# 'rudente filed a !etition for ertiorari with the Su!reme +ourt# "ss#e! 1hether the allegations ontained in the a!!li ation of 'B Ma0or Alladin -imagmaliw and the de laration of 'B5t# Florenio +# Angeles in his de!osition were suffi ient basis for the issuan e of a $alid sear h warrant# $el%! 2he @!robable auseA for a $alid sear h warrant, has been defined @as su h fa ts and ir umstan es whi h would lead a reasonably dis reet and !rudent man to belie$e that an offense has been ommitted, and that ob0e ts sought in onne tion with the offense are in the !la e sought to be sear hed#A 2his !robable ause must be shown to be within the !ersonal &nowledge of the om!lainant or the witnesses he may !rodu e and not based on mere hearsay# 2hus, for a $alid sear h warrant to issue, there must be !robable ause, whi h is to be determined !ersonally by the 0udge, after e.amination under oath or affirmation of the om!lainant and the witnesses he may

!rodu e, and !arti ularly des ribing the !la e to be sear hed and the !ersons or things to be sei%ed# 2he !robable ause must be in onne tion with one s!e ifi offense,and the 0udge must, before issuing the warrant, !ersonally e.amine in the form of sear hing 3uestions and answers, in writing and under oath, the om!lainant and any witness he may !rodu e, on fa ts !ersonally &nown to them and atta h to the re ord their sworn statements together with any affida$its submitted# 6erein, in his a!!li ation for sear h warrant, 'BMa0or Alladin -imagmaliw stated that @he has been informedA that Demesio 'rudente @has in his ontrol and !ossessionA the firearms and e.!losi$es des ribed therein, and that he @has $erified the re!ort and found it to be a fa t#A On the other hand, in his su!!orting de!osition, 'B5t# Florenio +# Angeles de lared that, as a result of their ontinuous sur$eillan e for se$eral days, they @gathered informations from $erified sour esA that the holders of the said firearms and e.!losi$es are not li ensed to !ossess them# 4n other words, the a!!li ant and his witness had no !ersonal &nowledge of the fa ts and ir umstan es whi h be ame the basis for issuing the 3uestioned sear h warrant, but a 3uired &nowledge thereof only through information from other sour es or !ersons# 1hile it is true that in his a!!li ation for sear h warrant, a!!li ant 'BMa0or -imagmaliw stated that he $erified the information he had earlier re ei$ed that !etitioner had in his !ossession and ustody the firearms and e.!losi$es des ribed in the a!!li ation, and that he found it to be a fa t, yet there is nothing in the re ord to show or indi ate how and when said a!!li ant $erified the earlier information a 3uired by him as to 0ustify his on lusion that he found su h information to be a fa t# 6e might ha$e larified this !oint if there had been sear hing 3uestions and answers, but there were none# 4n fa t, the re ords yield no 3uestions and answers, whether sear hing or not, $is=a=$is the said a!!li ant# >$idently, the allegations ontained in the a!!li ation of 'B Ma0or Alladin -imagmaliw and the de laration of 'B5t# Florenio +# Angeles in his de!osition were insuffi ient basis for the issuan e of a $alid sear h warrant# .,ia vs. Ac in: .ollec or o7 .#s o;s [GR L43(11, 26 4e' e;3er 19(9] 5irst Division, .rino19,uino (J): 4 concur Fac s! A ting on a $erified re!ort of a onfidential informant that assorted ele troni and ele tri al e3ui!ment and other arti les illegally im!orted into the 'hili!!ines by a syndi ate engaged in unlawful @shi!sideA a ti$ities :foreign goods are unloaded from foreign shi!s in transit through 'hili!!ine waters into motori%ed ban as and landed on 'hili!!ine soil without !assing through the

2)

9ureau of +ustoms, thereby e$ading !ayment of the orres!onding ustoms duties and ta.es thereon; were found inside @2om*s >le troni sA and @Sony Mer handising :'hili!!ines;A stores lo ated at /97 and /91 "on%alo 'uyat orner >$angelista Street, Iuia!o, Manila, a letter= re3uest dated 2) A!ril 198/ was addressed to the +olle tor of +ustoms by the -e!uty -ire tor of the (egional Anti=Smuggling A tion +enter, Manila 9ay Area :(ASA+=M9A; for the issuan e of warrants of sei%ure and detention# After e$aluation, the +olle tor of +ustoms issued 1arrants of Sei%ure and -etention 14925 and 14925=A, dire ting the Anti=Smuggling A tion +enter to sei%e the goods mentioned therein, i#e# $arious ele troni e3ui!ments li&e assette ta!e re orders, ar stereos, !honogra!h needles :diamond;, !ortable 2F sets, im!orted long !laying re ords, s!are !arts of 2Fs and radios and other ele tri al a!!lian es# A (ASA+ team was formed and gi$en a mission order to enfor e the warrants, whi h it im!lemented with the assistan e ofH :1; the Dational +ustoms 'oli e :augmenting the team with 2 members;, :2; the -ete ti$e 9ureau of the Manila 1estern 'oli e -istri t 6ead3uarters :with ) dete ti$es;, as well as, :); 're in t ) of the Manila 1estern 'oli e -istri t whi h e.er ised 0urisdi tional ontrol o$er the !la e to be raided# 2he intended raid was entered in the res!e ti$e !oli e blotters of the !oli e dete ti$e bureaus# On the strength of the warrants of sei%ure and detention, the raid was ondu ted in the afternoon of 25 A!ril 198/ at the 2 stores of 2omas +hia# ASA+ team leader "ener Sula, together with his agents 9adron -obli, Arturo Manuel, (odolfo Molina and Ser$illano Florentin of +am! Aguinaldo, Iue%on +ity, assisted by two ustoms !oli emen, Fal Martine% and (enato Sorima, and Manila !oli emen (ogelio Finas and Cohn 'eralta, re o$ered from the stores, assorted ele troni e3ui!ment and other arti les, the ustoms duties on whi h allegedly had not been !aid# 2hey were turned o$er to the +ustoms Au tion and +argo -is!osal Unit of the 9ureau of +ustoms# On 18 May 198/, in the afternoon, the hearing offi er of A ting +olle tor of +ustoms Alfredo Fran is o ondu ted a hearing on the onfis ation of the goods ta&en by "ener Sula and his agents# 2 days later, +hia filed the !etition for ertiorari, !rohibition and mandamus before the Su!reme +ourt to en0oin the +olle tor of +ustoms andBor his agents from further !ro eeding with the forfeiture hearing and !rayed that the sear h warrants be de lared null and $oid, that the latter be ordered to return the onfis ated arti les to +hia, and to !ay damages# "ss#e! 1hether the warrants issued by the +olle tor of +ustoms !arta&es the nature of a general warrants, and thus are in$alid#

$el%! Dot only may goods be sei%ed without a sear h and sei%ure warrant under Se tion 25)/ of the +ustoms and 2ariff +ode, when they :the goods; are o!enly offered for sale or &e!t in storage in a store as herein, but the fa t is that +hia*s stores K @2om*s >le troni sA and @Sony Mer handising :'hil#;A K were sear hed u!on warrants of sear h and detention issued by the +olle tor of +ustoms, who, under the 198) +onstitution, was @a res!onsible offi er authori%ed by lawA to issue them# Se tions 227< and 2279 of the 2ariff and +ustoms +ode !ro$ide when a sear h may be made without a warrant and when a warrant is ne essary# Se tion 227< !ro$ides that @For the more effe ti$e dis harge of his offi ial duties, any !erson e.er ising the !owers herein onferred, may at any time enter, !ass through or sear h any land or in losure or any warehouse, store or other building, not being a dwelling house# A warehouse, store or other building or in losure used for the &ee!ing or storage of arti les does not be ome a dwelling house within the meaning hereof merely by reason of the fa t that a !erson em!loyed as wat hman li$es in the !la e, nor will the fa t that his family stays there with him alter the ase#A On the other hand, Se tion 2279 !ro$ides that @A dwelling house may be entered and sear hed only u!on warrant issued by a Cudge of the ourt or su h other res!onsible offi ers as may be authori%ed by law, u!on sworn a!!li ation showing !robable ause and !arti ularly des ribing the !la e to be sear hed and the !erson or thing to be sei%ed#A 2he warrants issued by the +olle tor of +ustoms in this ase were not general warrants for they identified the stores to be sear hed, des ribed the arti les to be sei%ed and s!e ified the !ro$ision of the 2ariff and +ustoms +ode $iolated# U!on effe ting the sei%ure of the goods, the 9ureau of +ustoms a 3uired e. lusi$e 0urisdi tion not only o$er the ase but also o$er the goods sei%ed for the !ur!ose of enfor ing the tariff and ustoms laws# Further, a !arty dissatisfied with the de ision of the +olle tor may a!!eal to the +ommissioner of +ustoms, whose de ision is a!!ealable to the +ourt of 2a. A!!eals in the manner and within the !eriod !res ribed by law and regulations# 2he de ision of the +ourt of 2a. A!!eals may be ele$ated to the Su!reme +ourt for re$iew# Sin e +hia did not e.haust his administrati$e remedies, his re ourse to this +ourt is !remature# 21 , .en #ry FoB Fil; .or'ora ion vs. .o#r o7 A''eals [GR L-26649-)1, 19 A#:#s 19((] Third Division, .utierre4 J* (J): 4 concur Fac s! 4n a letter= om!laint dated 2/ August 19<5, 27th +entury Fo. Film +or!oration through ounsel sought the Dational 9ureau of 4n$estigation*s :D94; assistan e in the ondu t

24

of sear hes and sei%ures in onne tion with the D94*s anti=film !ira y am!aign# S!e ifi ally, the letter= om!laint alleged that ertain $ideota!e outlets all o$er Metro Manila are engaged in the unauthori%ed sale and renting out of o!yrighted films in $ideota!e form whi h onstitute a flagrant $iolation of 'residential -e ree 49 :-e ree on the 'rote tion of 4ntelle tual 'ro!erty;# A ting on the letter= om!laint, the D94 ondu ted sur$eillan e and in$estigation of the outlets !in!ointed by the film or!oration and subse3uently filed ) a!!li ations for sear h warrants against the $ideo outlets owned by >duardo M# 9arreto, (aul Sagullo, and Fortune 5edesma# 2he a!!li ations were onsolidated and heard by the (egional 2rial +ourt :(2+; of Ma&ati, 9ran h 1)2# On 4 Se!tember 19<5, the lower ourt issued the desired sear h warrants, des ribing the arti les sought to be sei%ed asA: ; 2ele$ision sets, Fideo +assettes (e orders, rewinders, ta!e head leaners, a essories, e3ui!ments and other ma hines used or intended to be used in the unlawful re!rodu tion, sale, rentalBlease, distribution of the abo$e=mentioned $ideo ta!es whi h she is &ee!ing and on ealing in the !remises abo$e= des ribed#A# Armed with the sear h warrants, the D94 a om!anied by the film or!oration*s agents, raided the $ideo outlets and sei%ed the items des ribed therein# An in$entory of the items sei%ed was made and left with 9arreto, et# al# A ting on a motion to lift sear h warrants and release sei%ed !ro!erties filed by 9arreto, et# al#, the lower ourt issued an order dated < O tober 19<5, lifting the ) sear h warrants issued earlier against them by the ourt, due to the failure of the D94 to deli$er the arti les to the +ourt, and thus ordered the return of the arti les to their res!e ti$e owners# 2he lower ourt denied a motion for re onsideration filed by the film or!oration in its order dated 2 Canuary 19</# 2he film or!oration filed a !etition for ertiorari with the +ourt of A!!eals to annul the orders of the lower ourt# 2he !etition was dismissed# 2he 27th +entury Fo. Film +or!oration filed the !etition for re$iew with the Su!reme +ourt# "ss#e! 1hether the in lusion of ertain arti les of !ro!erty whi h are usually onne ted to legitimate business, and not in$ol$ing !ira y of intelle tual !ro!erty or infringement of o!yright laws, renders the warrant to be unreasonable# $el%! 2ele$ision sets, $ideo assette re orders, rewinders and ta!e leaners are arti les whi h an be found in a $ideo ta!e store engaged in the legitimate business of lending or renting out betama. ta!es# 4n short, these arti les and a!!lian es are generally onne ted with, or related to a legitimate business not ne essarily in$ol$ing !ira y of intelle tual !ro!erty or

infringement of o!yright laws# 6en e, in luding these arti les without s!e ifi ation andBor !arti ularity that they were really instruments in $iolating an Anti='ira y law ma&es the sear h warrant too general whi h ould result in the onfis ation of all items found in any $ideo store# 4n fa t, this a tually ha!!ened in the !resent ase# Although the a!!li ations and warrants themsel$es o$ered ertain arti les of !ro!erty usually found in a $ideo store, the +ourt belie$es that the sear h !arty should ha$e onfined themsel$es to arti les that are a ording to them, e$iden e onstituti$e of infringement of o!yright laws or the !ira y of intelle tual !ro!erty, but not to other arti les that are usually onne ted with, or related to, a legitimate business, not in$ol$ing !ira y of intelle tual !ro!erty, or infringement of o!yright laws# So that a tele$ision set, a rewinder, and a whiteboard listing 9etama. ta!es, $ideo assette leaners $ideo assette re orders as refle ted in the (eturns of Sear h 1arrants, are items of legitimate business engaged in the $ideo ta!e industry, and whi h ould not be the sub0e t of sei%ure# 2he a!!li ant and his agents therefore e. eeded their authority in sei%ing !erfe tly legitimate !ersonal !ro!erty usually found in a $ideo assette store or business establishment# 2he sear h and sei%ure is unreasonable# Aolasco vs. .r#z &ano [GR L-69(13, ( <c o3er 19()] En Banc, 3elencio1:errera (J): concur, ! concurs in the result, ! too) no #art, ! reserves his vote Fac s! 'rior to / August 19<4, Mila Aguilar= (o3ue was one of the a used of (ebellion in +riminal +ase SM+=1=1 before S!e ial Military +ommission 1, and also one of the a used of Sub$ersion in +riminal +ase M+=25=11) of Military +ommission 25, both ases being entitled @'eo!le of the 'hili!!ines $s# Cose Ma# Sison, et al#A She was then still at large# At around 9H77 a#m# on August /, 5t# +ol# Firgilio "# Salda0eno of the +S", a!!lied for a Sear h 1arrant from the 6on# >rnani +ru% 'aOo, >.e uti$e Cudge of the (egional 2rial +ourt in Iue%on +ity, to be ser$ed at Do# 2)9=9 Mayon Street, Iue%on +ity, determined to be the leased residen e of Aguilar=(o3ue, after almost a month of @round the lo & sur$eillan eA of the !remises as a @sus!e ted underground house of the +''BD'A#A Aguilar=(o3ue has been long wanted by the military for being a high ran&ing offi er of the +ommunist 'arty of the 'hili!!ines, !arti ularly onne ted with the MF JaragatanB-oOa Andrea ases# At 11H)7 a#m#, Aguilar=(o3ue and +ynthia -# Dolas o were arrested by a +onstabulary Se urity "rou! :+S"; at the interse tion of Mayon Street and '# Margall Street, Iue%on +ity# 2he re ord does not dis lose that a warrant of arrest had

25

!re$iously been issued against Dolas o# At 12H77 noon on the same day, elements of the +S" sear hed the !remises at 2)9=9 Mayon Street, Iue%on +ity# 1illie +# 2olentino, a !erson then in harge of the !remises, was arrested by the sear hing !arty !resumably without a warrant of arrest# 2he sear hing !arty sei%ed 42< do uments and written materials, and additionally a !ortable ty!ewriter, and 2 wooden bo.es, ma&ing 4)1 items in all# On August 17, Aguilar=(o3ue, Dolas o and 2olentino, were harged before the Iue%on +ity Fis al*s Offi e u!on om!laint filed by the +S" against the former for @Sub$ersionB(ebellion andBor +ons!ira y to +ommit (ebellionBSub$ersion# On August 1), the +ity Fis al filed an 4nformation for Fiolation of 'residential -e ree :'-; )) :4llegal 'ossession of Sub$ersi$e -o uments; against Aguilar= (o3ue, et# al# before 9ran h 42 of the Metro!olitan 2rial +ourt of Iue%on +ity, Cudge Antonio '# Santos, !residing# On August 1/, +S" filed a Motion for (e onsideration with the +ity Fis al, !raying that Aguilar=(o3ue and Dolas o be harged with Sub$ersion# 2he Motion was denied on Do$ember 1/# On Se!tember 17, the +S" submitted an Amended (eturn in the Sear h 1arrant ase !raying, inter alia, that the +S" be allowed to retain the sei%ed 4)1 do uments and arti les, @in onne tion with ases that are !resently !ending against Mila Aguilar (o3ue before the Iue%on +ity Fis al*s Offi e and the ourt#A On -e ember 1), Cudge 'aOo admitted the Amended (eturn and ruled that the sei%ed do uments @shall be sub0e t to dis!osition of the tribunal trying the ase against res!ondent#A A day before that, Aguilar= (o3ue, et# al# filed a Motion to Su!!ress, !raying that su h of the 4)1 items belonging to them be returned to them# 4t was laimed that the !ro eedings under the Sear h 1arrant were unlawful# Cudge Santos denied the Motion on 8 Canuary 19<5 on the ground that the $alidity of the Sear h 1arrant has to be litigated in the other ase, a!!arently unaware of the Order issued by Cudge 'aOo on -e ember 1)# Dolas o, Aguilar=(o3ue, and 2olentino filed the 'etition for +ertiorari, 'rohibition and Mandamus to annul and set aside the :1; Sear h 1arrant issued by (2+ Cudge 'aOo, :2; his Order admitting the Amended (eturn and granting the Motion to (etain Sei%ed 4tems, and :); Order of M2+ Cudge Santos denying Aguilar=(o3ue, et# al#*s Motion to Su!!ress# "ss#e! 1hether the des ri!tion of the !ersonalities to be sei%ed in the sear h warrant is too general to render the warrant $oid# $el%! 2he dis!uted Sear h 1arrant :<7=<4; des ribes the !ersonalities to be sei%ed as @-o uments, !a!ers and other re ords of the +ommunist 'arty of the 'hili!!inesBDew 'eo!les Army andBor the Dational -emo rati Front,

su h as Minutes of the 'arty Meetings, 'lans of these grou!s, 'rograms, 5ist of !ossible su!!orters, sub$ersi$e boo&s and instru tions, manuals not otherwise a$ailable to the !ubli , and su!!ort money from foreign or lo al sour es#A 4t is at on e e$ident that the Sear h 1arrant authori%es the sei%ure of !ersonal !ro!erties $aguely des ribed and not !arti ulari%ed# 4t is an all=embra ing des ri!tion whi h in ludes e$erything on ei$able regarding the +ommunist 'arty of the 'hili!!ines and the Dational -emo rati Front# 4t does not s!e ify what the sub$ersi$e boo&s and instru tions are, what the manuals not otherwise a$ailable to the !ubli ontain to ma&e them sub$ersi$e or to enable them to be used for the rime of rebellion# 2here is absent a definite guideline to the sear hing team as to what items might be lawfully sei%ed thus gi$ing the offi ers of the law dis retion regarding what arti les they should sei%e as, in fa t, ta&en also were a !ortable ty!ewriter and 2 wooden bo.es# 4t is thus in the nature of a general warrant and infringes on the onstitutional mandate re3uiring !arti ular des ri!tion of the things to be sei%ed# Sear h warrants of similar des ri!tion were onsidered null and $oid for being too general# Dotwithstanding the irregular issuan e of the Sear h 1arrant and although, ordinarily, the arti les sei%ed under an in$alid sear h warrant should be returned, they annot be ordered returned to Aguilar=(o3ue# Some sear hes may be made without a warrant# Se tion 12, (ule 12/, (ules of +ourt, is de laratory in the sense that it is onfined to the sear h, without a sear h warrant, of a !erson who had been arrested# 4t is also a general rule that, as an in ident of an arrest, the !la e or !remises where the arrest was made an also be sear h without a sear h warrant# 4n this latter ase, @the e.tent and reasonableness of the sear h must be de ided on its own fa ts and ir umstan es, and it has been stated that, in the a!!li ation of general rules, there is some onfusion in the de isions as to what onstitutes the e.tent of the !la e or !remises whi h may be sear hedA# +onsidering that Aguilar=(o3ue has been harged with (ebellion, whi h is a rime against !ubli order, that the warrant for her arrest has not been ser$ed for a onsiderable !eriod of time, that she was arrested within the general $i inity of her dwelling, and that the sear h of her dwelling was made within a half hour of her arrest, the +ourt was of the o!inion that, in her res!e t, the sear h at Do# 2)9=9 Mayon Street, Iue%on +ity, did not need a sear h warrant, this, for !ossible effe ti$e results in the interest of !ubli order# Su h being the ase, the !ersonalities sei%ed may be retained by +S", for !ossible introdu tion as e$iden e in the (ebellion +ase, lea$ing it to Aguilar=(o3ue to ob0e t to their rele$an e and to as& S!e ial

2/

Military +ommission 1 to return to her any all irrele$ant do uments and arti les# &a'er "n%#s ries .or'ora ion o7 ,e &,ili''ines vs. As#ncion [GR 122192, 19 May 1999] Third Division, 8angani/an (J): 3 concur, ! too) no #art Fac s! On 25 Canuary 1995, 'oli e +hief 4ns!e tor Da!oleon 9# 'as ua a!!lied for a sear h warrant before the (egional 2rial +ourt :(2+;, 9ran h 174, of Iue%on +ity, stating @:1; that the management of 'a!er 4ndustries +or!oration of the 'hili!!ines, lo ated at '4+O' om!ound, 9arangay 2abon, 9islig, Surigao del Sur, re!resented by its Sr# Fi e 'resident (i ardo "# Santiago, is in !ossession or has in its ontrol high !owered firearms, ammunitions, e.!losi$es, whi h are the sub0e t of the offense, or used or intended to be used in ommitting the offense, and whi h are being &e!t and on ealed in the !remises herein des ribed, :2; that a Sear h 1arrant should be issued to enable any agent of the law to ta&e !ossession and bring to this 6onorable +ourt the following des ribed !ro!ertiesH RSe$enty :87; M1/ Armalite rifles al# 5#5/, ten :17; M1/ US rifles, two :2; AJ=48 rifleLsM, two :2; U?4 subma hinegunLsM, two :2; M27) "renade 5aun herLsM al 47mm#, ten :17; al# 45 !istolLsM, ten :17; al# )< re$ol$erLsM, two :2; ammunition reloading ma hineLsM, assorted ammunitions for said alibers of firearms and ten :17; handgrenades#*A 2he 0oint -e!osition of S'O) +i ero S# 9a olod and S'O2 +e ilio 2# Morito, as well as a summary of the information and the su!!lementary statements of Mario >nad and Feli!e Moreno were atta hed to the a!!li ation# After !ro!ounding se$eral 3uestions to 9a olod, Cudge Ma.imiano +# Asun ion issued the ontested sear h warrant# On 4 February 1995, the !oli e enfor ed the sear h warrant at the '4+O' om!ound and sei%ed $arious firearms and ammunition# 9elie$ing that the warrant was in$alid and the sear h unreasonable, 'a!er 4ndustries +or!oration of the 'hili!!ines, >$aristo M# Dar$ae% Cr#, (i ardo "# Santiago, (oberto A# -ormendo, (eydande -# A%u ena, Di eforo F# A$ila, Florentino M# Mula, Feli. O# 9aito, 6arold 9# +elestial, >lmeden io +# +ali.tro, +arlito S# 5ega ion, Albino 2# 5ubang, Ceremias 4# Abad and 6erminio F# Fillamil filed a @Motion to IuashA 1/ before the trial ourt# Subse3uently, they also filed a @Su!!lemental 'leading to the Motion to IuashA and a @Motion to Su!!ress >$iden e#A On 2) Mar h 1995, the (2+ issued the Order whi h denied '4+O', et# al#*s motions# On ) August 1995, the trial ourt rendered its Order denying their Motion for (e onsideration# '4+O', et# al# filed a 'etition for +ertiorari and 'rohibition#

"ss#e! 1hether the fa t that the warrant identifies only one !la e, i#e# the @'a!er 4ndustries +or!oration of the 'hili!!ines, lo ated at '4+O' +om!ound, 9arangay 2abon, 9islig, Surigao del Sur,A satisfies the re3uirements of the !arti ularity of the !la e to be sear h, and thus render the warrant $alid# $el%! Do# 2he fundamental right against unreasonable sear hes and sei%ures and the basi onditions for the issuan e of a sear h warrant are laid down in Se tion 2, Arti le 444 of the 19<8 +onstitution# +onsistent with the foregoing onstitutional !ro$ision, Se tions ) and 4, (ule 12/ of the (ules of +ourt, detail the re3uisites for the issuan e of a $alid sear h warrant# 2he re3uisites of a $alid sear h warrant areH :1; !robable ause is !resent, :2; su h !resen e is determined !ersonally by the 0udge, :); the om!lainant and the witnesses he or she may !rodu e are !ersonally e.amined by the 0udge, in writing and under oath or affirmation, :4; the a!!li ant and the witnesses testify on fa ts !ersonally &nown to them, and :5; the warrant s!e ifi ally des ribes the !la e to be sear hed and the things to be sei%ed# 4n $iew of the manifest ob0e ti$e of the onstitutional safeguard against unreasonable sear h, the +onstitution and the (ules limit the !la e to be sear hed only to those des ribed in the warrant# 2hus, this +ourt has held that @this onstitutional right is the embodiment of a s!iritual on e!tH the belief that to $alue the !ri$a y of home and !erson and to afford it onstitutional !rote tion against the long rea h of go$ernment no less than to $alue human dignity, and that his !ri$a y must not be disturbed e. e!t in ase of o$erriding so ial need, and then only under stringent !ro edural safeguards#A Additionally, the re3uisite of !arti ularity is related to the !robable ause re3uirement in that, at least under some ir umstan es, the la & of a more s!e ifi des ri!tion will ma&e it a!!arent that there has not been a suffi ient showing to the magistrate that the des ribed items are to be found in a !arti ular !la e# 6erein, the sear h warrant is in$alid be ause :1; the trial ourt failed to e.amine !ersonally the om!lainant and the other de!onentsH :2; S'O) +i ero 9a olod, who a!!eared during the hearing for the issuan e of the sear h warrant, had no !ersonal &nowledge that '4+O', et# al# were not li ensed to !ossess the sub0e t firearms, and :); the !la e to be sear hed was not des ribed with !arti ularity# As to the !arti ularity of the !la e to be sear hed, the assailed sear h warrant failed to des ribed the !la e with !arti ularity# 4t sim!ly authori%es a sear h of @the aforementioned !remises,A but it did not s!e ify su h !remises# 2he warrant identifies only one !la e, and that is the @'a!er 4ndustries +or!oration of the 'hili!!ines, lo ated at '4+O' +om!ound, 9arangay 2abon, 9islig, Surigao del Sur#A 2he

28

'4+O' om!ound, howe$er, is made u! of @277 offi esBbuildings, 15 !lants, <4 staff houses, 1 airstri!, ) !iersBwhar$es, 2) warehouses, / 'O5 de!otsB3ui & ser$i e outlets and some <77 mis ellaneous stru tures, all of whi h s!read out o$er some one hundred fifty=fi$e he tares#A Ob$iously, the warrant gi$es the !oli e offi ers unbridled and thus illegal authority to sear h all the stru tures found inside the '4+O' om!ound# 9e ause the sear h warrant was !ro ured in $iolation of the +onstitution and the (ules of +ourt, all the firearms, e.!losi$es and other materials sei%ed were @inadmissible for any !ur!ose in any !ro eeding#A >o#se7 Al-G,o#l vs. .o#r o7 A''eals [GR 126()9, 4 4e' e;3er 2111] 2econd Division, ;uisum/ing (J): 4 concur Fac s! On )1 Mar h 1995, Cudge "eronimo S# Mangay, !residing 0udge of the (egional 2rial +ourt, Dational +a!ital Cudi ial (egion, 9ran h 125, Jaloo&an +ity, issued sear h warrants 54= 95 and 55=95 for the sear h and sei%ure of ertain items in A!artment 2 at 154 Obiniana +om!ound, -e!aro (oad, Jaloo&an +ity# On 1 A!ril 1995, the !oli e sear hed A!artment <, in the same om!ound and found one :1; #45 aliber !istol# Found in A!artment 2 were 2 M= 1/ rifles with 2 maga%ines and 27 li$e M=1/ ammunitions, 1 9ar of demolition harge, 1 +aliber 'istol with no# /)4 and other nos# were !la ed with maga%ine of +aliber #45 and ) li$e 45 ammunitions, 1 22 +aliber handgun with 5 li$e ammunitions in its ylinder, 1 9o. ontaining 47 !ie es of #25 aliber ammunitions, 2 !ie es of fragmentation grenade, 1 roll of detonating ord olor yellow, 2 big bags of ammonium nitrate sus!e ted to be e.!losi$es substan e, 22 detonating ords with blasting a!s, T and U !ound of high e.!losi$es 2D2, 1 timer alarm lo &, 2 bags of sus!e ted gun !owder, 2 small !lasti bag of sus!e ted e.!losi$e substan e, 1 small bo. of !lasti bag of sus!e ted dynamites, One weighing s ale, and 2 batteries 9 $olts with blasting a!s and detonating ord# 2he firearms, ammunitions, e.!losi$es and other in endiary de$i es sei%ed at the a!artments were a &nowledged in the re ei!t signed by S'O2 Melanio de la +ru%# Sousef Al "houl, 4sam Mohammad Abdulhadi, 1ail (ashid Al=Jhatib, Dabeel Dasser Al=(iyami, Ashraf 6assam Al= Sa%ori, and Mohammad Abushendi were harged before the (egional 2rial +ourt of Jaloo&an +ity, 9ran h 12), in informations :+riminal +ases +=4<///=/8; a using them with illegal !ossession of firearms, ammunitions and e.!losi$es, !ursuant to 'residential -e ree 1<//# 2hereafter, they were arrested and detained# 2hey filed a motion for bail on 24 May 1995, the resolution of whi h was held in abeyan e by the (2+ !ending the !resentation of e$iden e from the !rose ution to determine

whether or not the e$iden e !resented is strong# On 8 February 199/, at the hearing for bail, the (2+ @admitted all e.hibits being offered for whate$er !ur!ose that they maybe worthA after the !rose ution had finished addu ing its e$iden e des!ite the ob0e tion by the !etitioners on the admissibility of said e$iden e# On 19 February 199/, the (2+ denied their motion for bail earlier filed# As their a tion before a!!ellate ourt also !ro$ed futile, with the a!!ellate ourt dismissing their s!e ial i$il a tion for ertiorari, they filed the !etition for re$iew before the Su!reme +ourt# "ss#e! 1hether the sear h and sei%ure orders are $alid, and the ob0e ts sei%ed admissible in e$iden e# $el%! As held in '4+O' $# Asun ion, the !la e to be sear hed annot be hanged, enlarged nor am!lified by the !oli e# 'oli emen may not be restrained from !ursuing their tas& with $igor, but in doing so, are must be ta&en that onstitutional and legal safeguards are not disregarded# >. lusion of unlawfully sei%ed e$iden e is the only !ra ti al means of enfor ing the onstitutional in0un tion against unreasonable sear hes and sei%ures# 6en e, the sear h made at A!artment Do# < is illegal and the #45 aliber !istol ta&en thereat is inadmissible in e$iden e against Al="houl, et# al# 4n ontrast, the sear h ondu ted at A!artment 2 ould not be similarly faulted# 2he sear h warrants s!e ifi ally mentioned A!artment 2# 2he sear h was done in the !resen e of its o u!ants, in a ordan e with Se tion 8 of (ule 12/, (e$ised (ules of +ourt# 2he arti les sei%ed during the sear h of A!artment 2 are of the same &ind and nature as those items enumerated in the sear h warrant# 2he items sei%ed from A!artment 2 were des ribed with s!e ifi ity in the warrants in 3uestion# 2he nature of the items ordered to be sei%ed did not re3uire a te hni al des ri!tion# Moreo$er, the law does not re3uire that the things to be sei%ed must be des ribed in !re ise and minute details as to lea$e no room for doubt on the !art of the sear hing authorities, otherwise, it would be $irtually im!ossible for the a!!li ants to obtain a sear h warrant as they would not &now e.a tly what &ind of things they are loo&ing for# On e des ribed, howe$er, the arti les sub0e t of the sear h and sei%ure need not be so in$ariant as to re3uire absolute on ordan e between those sei%ed and those des ribed in the warrant# Substantial similarity of those arti les des ribed as a lass or s!e ies would suffi e#