Burgos v.

Chief of Staff
G.R. No. L-64261; 26 December 1984; Escolin, J.
Synopsis
By virtue of 2 search warrants, police searched and seized various
items from the offices of 2 newspapers edited/published by the
petitioners. The search and seizure operations were carried out in
connection with the petitioners alleged violation of PD 885, which
prohibits membership in subversive organizations. The warrants
were assailed for having been issued in contravention of the law and
the rules concerning the issuance of search warrants. The
petitioners prayed that the items seized be declared as inadmissible
as evidence, and that the same be returned to the petitioners.
The SC declared that the search warrants were NULL and VOID for
non-compliance with the requirements that (i) such warrants only
be issued after a showing of the existence of probable cause, and (ii)
either the complainant or his witnesses should have personal
knowledge of the facts justifying the issuance of a search warrant.
Furthermore, (iii) General warrants are not valid the search
warrants issued were of the nature and substance of general
warrants.
Doctrine
Search warrants can only be issued if there is a sufficient showing of
the existence of probable cause for a search. Probable cause for a
search are such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the
offense are in the place sought to be searched.
Search warrants can only be issued provided that the complainant or
his witnesses have personal knowledge of the facts with would
justify the issuance of such search warrants.
General warrants are void.
Crim 1 and/or 2 refresher
Statutory basis
PD 885

Section 2. Subversive Associations and Organizations. Any association, organization,
political party, or group of persons organized for the purpose of overthrowing the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines with the open or covert assistance and
support of a foreign power by force, violence, deceit or other illegal means shall be
considered and is hereby declared an illegal organization.

Section 3. Penalties

(a) Members. Whoever knowingly, wilfully and by overt act affiliates with, becomes or
remains a member of a subversive associations or organization as defined in Section 2
hereof shall be punished by arresto mayor and shall be disqualified permanently from
holding any public office, appointive or elective, and from exercising the right to vote; in
case of a second conviction, the principal penalty shall be prision correccional; and in all
subsequent convictions the penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed.

xxx xxx xxx

Facts
Alleged Commission of Crime
Petitioners were alleged to have committed the crime of Subversion
[PD 885]. Specifically, PD 885 punishes members of Subversive
Associations and Organizations.
Antecedents
Surveillance
Members of the Metrocom Intelligence and Security
Group conducted surveillance of two places: No. 19, Road
3, Proj. 6, Q.C.; and, RMS Building, along Quezon Ave., Q.C.
Metropolitan Mail and We Forum newspapers
associated with herein petitioners were located in said
premises.
Application for search warrants
Col. Rolando Abadilla applied for the issuance of a search
warrant with Judge Cruz-Pano of the CFI of Rizal (Quezon
City). Items to be seized were purportedly being used as
instruments and means of the commission of the crime of
Subversion.
Issuance of search warrants
Judge Cruz-Pano issued the assailed search warrants.
Actual Search and Seizure
From the offices of the two newspapers, police seized
various items allegedly used in the commission of criminal
acts prohibited under PD 885.
Criminal Procedure (The actual case where the petitioners are being
prosecuted for having allegedly violated PD 885 is not the subject of
the petition. Rather, the petition is merely concerned with the
admissibility of the items seized via the search warrants issued by
Judge Cruz-Pano.)
Preliminary Investigation/Inquest; Arrest; Filing of Information:
Arraignment; Pre-Trial; Trial; Judgment: **NA***
Appeal:
Burgos et al. filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus, with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory
injunction. They assailed the validity of 2 search warrants
issued by Judge Cruz-Pano. They also prayed for the
return of seized articles, and that the prosecution be
enjoined from using said articles as evidence against the
accused in the Criminal Case.
The prayer for preliminary prohibitory injunction vis--vis
the use of the seized articles as evidence was rendered
moot and academic by the manifestation of the SolGen
that said articles would not be used as evidence pending
resolution of the case at bar.
Respondents sought to have the petition dismissed on the
ground that the petitions had come to the Court without
having sought the quashal of the assailed search warrants
before the respondent judge. SC decided to disregard the
procedural flaw in view of the constitutional issues raised,
as well as the public interest nature of events
Neither did the SC dismiss the petition on the ground of
laches. The petition was only filed with a seeming delay as
the petitioners had sought to exhaust other remedies
including sending a letter to the President requesting that
some of the seized items be returned.
Issues (and short answers)
1. WoN Burgos is estopped from challenging the
admissibility of the seized items as evidence. NO.
2. WoN the Search Warrants were issued in accordance with
law. NO. (Although in some respects, the warrants did
comply with the requirements)
3. WoN the closure of the premises was in accordance with
law. NO.
Held
The search warrants are declared NULL and VOID. The prayer for a writ of
mandatory injunction for the return of the seized articles is granted.
Ratio
(1) Burgos et al. are not estopped from challenging the validity of
the search warrants
Respondents had submitted that since Burgos had used and marked
as evidence some of the seized documents, that he was estopped
from assailing the validity of the search warrants.
The SC stated that said documents lawfully belong to Burgos
Burgos could do whatever he pleased with them. His use of some of
the items seized as evidence does not in any way affect the validity
or invalidity of the assailed search warrants.
(2) The search warrants were issued improperly, in contravention
of the Rules and Law that lay out the proper procedure.
Search Warrants are VALID, insofar as:
i) Only one address indicated for both search warrants
Merely due to typographical error
Clear from application warrants that the intent
was to search two distinct premises: the two
addresses were specifically set forth.
The executing officers prior knowledge as to
the place intended in the warrant is relevant; in
any case, the executing officer may look to the
affidavit in the official court file to resolve
ambiguities in the warrant as to the place to be
searched.
ii) Items seized belonged not only to Burgos to whom
the search warrants had been directed but also to
his co-petitioners in the case at bar
The rule on personal property to be seized (Rule
126, RoC) does not require that the property to
be seized should be owned by the person against
whom the search warrant is directed
The rules specifies that property may be seized
if:
i. it is a property subject of the offense
ii. if it is stolen or embezzled, or
constitute proceeds or fruits of the
offense
iii. if it is used (or intended to be used) as
the means of committing an offense
Sufficient that the person against whom the
warrant is directed has control or possession of
the property sought to be seized
iii) Items seized included machinery bolted to the ground
(which the petitioners alleged rendered them as real
property)
Machinery is movable in nature; only becomes
immobilized when placed by the OWNER of the
tenement, property, or plant
Petitioners do not claim to be owners of the land
or of the buildings
Machines remained movable properties and
thus, susceptible to seizure
Search warrants are INVALID, insofar as:
i) issued without complying with the probable cause
requirement
Probable cause for a search: such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense
are in the place sought to be searched.
When the search warrant is directed against a
newspaper or publisher: the application or the
supporting affidavits MUST contain specific
mention of the alleged subversive material
published (or to be published)
o Generalizations will NOT suffice
o Mere conclusion of law: [items] were
used as a means of committing the
offense of subversion
ii) requirement that the complainant or his witnesses
must have personal knowledge of the facts that
would justify the issuance of a search warrant:
UNMET
The affidavits merely stated that the evidence
gathered were used for subversive activities in
conspiracy with illegal organizations
iii) General warrant
Items listed in the search warrant indicate
general classes of documents, rather than
specific items
o Ex. All printing equipment
connected in the printing of the WE
FORUM newspaper; subversive
documents to promote the
objectives and purposes of the
subversive organizations
(3) The effective closure of the newspapers is violative of the
freedom of the press guaranteed by the Constitution.
The padlocking and sealing of the premises resulted in the
discontinuation of the printing and publication of the two
newspapers: this is in the nature of prior restraint, or censorship.
The sequestration provision provided in PD 885 cannot be validly
carried out, in view of the absence of any IRR promulgated by the
Minister of National Defense.
Besides, President Marcos himself denied the request of military
authorities to sequester the properties seized.