Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Judge Maximiano
ASUNCION, Presiding judge of Branch 104, QC, and State Prosecutor Leo
Dacera
May 19, 1999
Panganiban, J.
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Procedure:
The petition for Certiorari and Prohibition prays for the Nullification of
Search Warrant 799 (95), and of the Orders issued by Judge Asuncion on
March 23 and August 3, 1995, as well as the issuance of a TRO against
State Prosecutor Dacera to desist him from proceeding with IS 95-167.
Oct. 23, 1995-The Supreme Court granted the TRO and asked Asuncion and
Dacera to comment on the position
Dec. 20, 1995-PNP Traffic Management Command filed 31 pp Opposition to
the petition, with 90 pages of annexes.
Feb. 22, 1996- OSG files comment, agreeing with Paper Industries et al.
(petitioners). Paper Industries files reply. SC gives due course to petition
and requires memoranda from both parties.
Feb. 5, 1997-SC requires Dacera to prepare memorandum for himself and
Asuncion. Show-cause order, then a non-extendible period to file the
memorandum. Dacera manifested that he was only a nominal party, and that
he had yet to receive the records of the case from the PNP.
Dec. 8, 1999-SC orders Special Operations Unit of PNP TMC to file
memorandum. Despite warnings that failure to submit said memorandum
within 30 days would cause the SC to deem the petition submitted for
decision, it was never received by the SC. Thus, the SOU was considered as
having waived its privilege to submit memorandum.
Facts:
Police Chief Napoleon Pascua applied for a search warrant with the RTC of
Quezon City against Paper Industries Corporation in Bgy. Tabon, Bislig,
Surigao del Sur, because that company possessed high powered firearms,
ammunition and explosives in violation of PD 1866, and that agents of the
law be allowed to take possession of the said firearms. (Its a long list. Refer
(2)SPO3 Cicero Bacolod, who appeared during the hearing for the
issuance of the search warrant, had no personal knowledge that
petitioners were not licensed to possess the subject firearms.
Bacolod appeared during the hearing and was extensively examined by the
judge. But his testimony showed that he did not have personal knowledge
that the petitioners, in violation of PD 1866, were not licensed to possess
firearms, ammunitions or explosives. During his Deposition, he only stated
that believed that after surveillance, that Paper Industries had the
questioned firearms, and that he believed that the PICOP guards had no
licence to possess them. This does not meet the requirement that a witness
must testify on his personal knowledge, not belief.
Moreover, Bacolod failed to affirm that none of the firearms seen inside the
PICOP compound were licensed. He declared that the security agency and
its guards were not licensed, and that some of the firearms were owned by
PICOP. However, he made no statement before the court that PICOP, aside
from the security agency, had no license to possess those firearms. He also
failed to present a copy of a certification from the PNPs Firearms and
Explosives Office (FEO) that the Paper Industries had no license.
(3) the place to be searched was not described with particularity.
The assailed search warrant failed to describe the place with particularity.
It simply authorizes a search of the aforementioned premises, but it did
not specify such premises. The warrant identifies only one place, and that
is the Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines, located at PICOP
Compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig[,] Surigao del Sur. The PICOP
compound, however, is made up of 200 offices/buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff
houses, 1 airstrip, 3 piers/wharves, 23 warehouses, 6 POL depots/quick
service outlets and some 800 miscellaneous structures, all of which are
spread out over some one hundred fifty-five hectares. Obviously, the
warrant gives the police officers unbridled and thus illegal authority to
search all the structures found inside the PICOP compound
The police claimed that they described the place to be searched with
particularity because they submitted sketches of the compound. However,
these sketches were not made integral parts of the search warrant issued
by Judge Asuncion.
Moreover, even if the police knew which buildings to search, this does not
render the description of the place sufficient. Even if they really intended
these buildings to be the subject of their application, the place to be
searched cannot be changed enlarged or amplified by the police (People v.
CA) The particularization of the description of the place to be searched may
properly be done only by the Judge, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot
be left to the discretion of the police officers conducting the search.
Because the search warrant was invalid, the seized firearms could not be
used as evidence in any proceeding for any purpose.
Petition Granted. Search Warrant declared null and void.