DABAO, ALEXA

Article III. Section 2. Requisites of a valid warrant.

People v. Mamaril - 420 SCRA 662 [2004] (GR 147607)
FACTS:
SPO2 Chito Esmenda applied before the RTC of Lingayen for a search warrant authorizing the search for marijuana
at the family residence of accused Mamaril, and thereafter, it was subsequently issued. During the search operation,
the searching team confiscated sachets of suspected marijuana leaves. Police officers took pictures of the confiscated
items and prepared a receipt of the property seized and certified that the house was properly searched which was
signed by the Mamaril and the 2 barangay officials who witnessed the search.
After the search, the police officers brought Mamaril and the confiscated articles to the PNP station. After weighing
the specimens and testing the same, the PNP Crime Laboratory issued a report finding the specimens to be positive
for the presence of marijuana. Moreover, the person who conducted the examination on the urine sample of
Mamaril affirmed that he was positive for the same.
In his defense, Mamaril denied that he was residing at his parents house at Lingayen since he has been residing at a
rented house at Sta. Barbara and declared that it was his brother and the latters family who were residing with his
mother, but on said search operation, his brother and family were not in the house since they were at the fishpond.
He testified that he was at his parents house that day because he and his live-in partner visited his mother, that he
saw the Receipt of Property Seized for the first time while he was testifying in court and admitted that the signature
on the certification that the house was properly searched was his.
ISSUE:
W/N the search warrant is valid.
HELD: No. Search warrant is null and void and the search and seizure made at Mamarils residence is illegal.
Under Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution and Rule 126, Secs. 4 & 5 of the Rules of Court, the issuance of a search
warrant is justified only upon a finding of probable cause. In determining the existence of probable cause, it is
required that: 1) the judge must examine the complaint and his witnesses personally; 2) the examination must be
under oath; 3) the examination must be reduced in writing in the form of searching questions and answers. In this
case, the records only show the existence of an application for a search warrant and the affidavits of the
complainants witnesses since the clerk of court could not produce the sworn statements of the complainant and his
witnesses showing that the judge examined them in the form of searching questions and answers. Thus, the
prosecution failed to prove that the judge who issued the warrant put into writing his examination of the applicant
and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers before issuance of the search warrant. Mere
affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are not sufficient. Such written examination is necessary in order that
the judge may be able to properly determine the existence and non-existence of probable cause. Therefore, the SSC
holds that said search warrant is tainted with illegality by failure of the judge to conform with the essential requisites
of taking the examination in writing and attaching to the record, rendering the search warrant invalid.
Before his residence was searched, the police authorities presented a search warrant to Mamaril. However, at that
time they presented the warrant, Mamaril could not determine if it was issued in accordance with law. It was only
during the trial that Mamaril, through his counsel, had reason to believe that the search warrant was illegally issued.
The Court construes the silence of Mamaril when the police showed him the warrant as a demonstration of regard
for the supremacy of the law. Moreover, Mamaril seasonably objected on constitutional grounds to the admissibility
of the evidence seized pursuant to said warrant during the trial, after the prosecution formally offered its evidence.
Under the circumstances, no intent to waive his rights can reasonably be inferred from his conduct before or during
the trial.
No matter how incriminating the articles taken from the appellant may be, their seizure cannot validate an invalid
warrant since nothing can justify the issuance of the search warrant but the fulfillment of the legal requisites. The
requirement mandated by law that the examination of the complaint and his witnesses must be under oath and
reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers was not complied with, rendering the search
warrant invalid. Consequently, the evidence seized pursuant to illegal search warrant cannot be used in evidence
against Mamaril in accordance with Section 3 (2) Article III of the Constitution (Exclusionary Rule).