REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH IX
BALAYAN, BATANGAS

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

CRIM. CASE NOS. 8517-8519

-versus-

JOHN MICHAEL GONZAGA y

DIANA, JONAIZAH ROCERO y
ALCEDO and
JOSEPHINE ROCERO y ALCEDO ,
Accused.
x---------------------------------------x

OMNIBUS MOTION: (a) TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT and (b) TO QUASH

THE INFORMATION FOR CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 8518 and 8519; and (c) TO
SUPPRESS EVIDENCE WITH MANIFESTATION

COMES NOW, ACCUSED, through the Public Attorney’s Office, by the

undersigned counsel de oficio and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully moves
for the quashal of the Search Warrant based on the extrinsic grounds: (1) there is no
compelling reason which would necessitate or justify the issuance of a search warrant by
a court which has no territorial jurisdiction over the place to be searched; (2) there is no
probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant and the Issuing Judge did not
conduct a probing and exhaustive examination upon the witnesses; and (3) the issuing
Judge did not take the deposition of the applicant as required by the Rules of Court.
Moreover, the undersigned counsel de oficio moves for the quashal of the Information for
Criminal Case Nos. 8518 AND 8519 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the Accused under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

SEC. 3. Grounds. The accused may move to quash the complaint on

information on any of the following grounds :

“x x x

(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused;

x x x”

PREFATORY STATEMENT
 The constitutional protection of our people against unreasonable search and
seizure is not merely a pleasing platitude. It vouchsafes our right to privacy and dignity
against undesirable intrusions committed by any public officer or private individual.1

The mantle of protection upon one’s person and one’s effects through Article III,
Section 2 of the Constitution is essential to allow citizens to evolve their autonomy and,
hence, to avail themselves of their right to privacy. The alleged compromise with the
battle against dangerous drugs is more apparent than real. Often, the compromise is there
because law enforcers neglect to perform what could have been done to uphold the
Constitution as they pursue those who traffic this scourge of society.2

While it is true that the legality of arrest depends upon the reasonable discretion
of the officer or functionary to whom the law at the moment leaves the decision to
characterize the nature of the act or deed of the person for the urgent purpose of
suspending his liberty, this should not be exercised in a whimsical manner, else a
person’s liberty be subjected to ubiquitous abuse. As law enforcers, it is largely expected
of them to conduct a more circumspect assessment of the situation at hand. The
determination of probable cause is not a blanket-license to withhold liberty or to
conduct unwarranted fishing expeditions. It demarcates the line between legitimate
human conduct on the one hand, and ostensible criminal activity, on the other. In this
respect, it must be performed wisely and cautiously, applying the exacting standards of a
reasonably discreet and prudent man. Surely, as constitutionally guaranteed rights lie at
the fore, the duty to determine probable cause should be clothed with utmost
conscientiousness as well as impelled by a higher sense of public accountability.3

ARGUMENTATION

A. The issuance of the Search Warrant is not anchored on Probable Cause and
the Issuing Judge failed to conduct a probing and exhaustive examination
upon the witnesses

1. The fundamental right against unreasonable and searches and seizures and the
basic conditions for the issuance of a search warrant are laid down in Section 2,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and
for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized. (Emphasis supplied)

2. Consistent with the foregoing constitutional provision, Section 3 and 4, Rule 126
of the Rules of Court, 24 detail the requisites for the issuance of a valid search
warrant as follows:

Sec. 3. Requisite for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant shall

not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

1
MPH Garments, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86729, September 2, 1984.
2
People vs. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014.
3
Martinez vs. People, G.R. No. 198694, February 13, 2013.
 Sec.4.Examination of complainant; record. — The judge must, before issuing the
warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in
writing and under oath the complainant and any witnesses he may produce on facts
personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together
with any affidavits submitted.

3. More simply stated, the requisites of a valid search warrant are: (1) probable
cause is present; (2) such presence is determined personally by the judge; (3) the
complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by
the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation; (4) the applicant and the
witnesses testify on facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant
specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

4. Given the foregoing premises, it is evident that the Search Warrant was not issued
based on probable cause considering that the facts and circumstances that
surround the issuance thereof were not within the personal knowledge of the
applicant.

5. While it is true that in the application for search warrant, applicant PSI Allan
Avena de Castro stated that he verified the report he had earlier received, there is
nothing in the record to show or indicate how and when said applicant verified the
earlier information acquired by him as to justify his conclusion that he found such
information to be a fact. He might have clarified this point if there had been
searching questions and answers, but there were none. Stated otherwise, there is
nothing in the record which would show that the Issuing Judge propounded
questions to the applicant as required by the Rules of Court.

6. In addition, even a cursory reading of the Stenographic notes 4 would reveal that
most of the questions propounded by the Issuing Judge to the witnesses PO1
Mark Joseph A. Landicho and PO3 Andy Micu Mosquite were leading questions
and that those which were not leading were merely based on or related to the
answers earlier given to the leading questions. By reason thereof, it is evident that
the Issuing Judge did not propound probing and exhaustive questions as he just
supplied the answers to his questions.

B. The issuing Judge did not take the deposition of the applicant and failed to
personally examine the latter in the form of searching questions and answers

7. The accused through his counsel requested to secure a copy for all the documents
submitted by the police officers in support of the application and copies of the
transcript of the stenograpic notes taken, however, the Clerk of Court of San
Pablo City, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29-32 only furnished him the following
documents:

a. Transcript of stenographic notes (Annex “A”)

b. Application for Search Warrant for Josephine Rocero y Alcedo (Annex
“B”)
c. Order of the Court granting the Application for Search Warrant (Annex
“C”)
d. Copy of the Search Warrant (Annex “D”)
e. Coordination (Annex “E”)
f. Pre-Operation Report (Annex “F”)
g. Chemistry Report for the Alleged Test Buy Operation (Annex “G”)
h. Request for Laboratory Examination of the Alleged Test Buy Operation
(Annex “H”)
i. House Sketch of the Accused Josephine Rocero y Alcedo (Annex “I”)
4
Attached as Annex “A”.
 j. Compliance/Return of the Search Warrant (Annex “J”)

8. The said Clerk of Court failed to furnish the counsel for the accused the searching
questions of the Judge and answers thereto given by the applicant PCI Rodel
Cacayorin Rosario as well as the sworn statements and affidavits of the witnesses.
The fact that they were not furnished to the accused only goes to show that the
said documents do not exist in the records.

9. Moreover, considering that the applicant was not subjected to searching questions
and the latter did not submit his affidavit or sworn statement when he applied for
the Search Warrant, the counsel for the accused believes that there is no sufficient
testimonial evidence in support of the application, and there are no established
facts which will serve as the basis for the issuance of search warrant.

10. With the foregoing, it is clear that the issuance of the Search Warrant against the
accused is tainted with serious irregularity and violation of the Rules of Court.

C. There is no compelling reason which would necessitate or justify the issuance

of a search warrant by a court which has no territorial jurisdiction over the
place to be searched

11. The accused submits that the compelling reason stated in the Application did not
measure with what is required under the Rules of Court. The applicant of the
Search Warrant claimed that if they will apply the Search Warrant to the court
having territorial jurisdiction over the place to be searched, such will somehow
come to the knowledge of the subject, thus rendering the enforcement of any
search warrant to be a useless effort and by reason thereof, he was compelled to
apply before the issuing Judge of Regional Trial Court of Branch 29-32 of San
Pablo City instead in the Regional Trial Court of Balayan City.

12. The “compelling reason” stated by PSI Allan Avena De Castro in his application
for Search Warrant should not be given due course or consideration for the reason
that he failed to present sufficient proof to the foregoing.

13. The applicant also failed to show in their application for search warrant that the
accused is an influential person or has connections in the Regional Trial Court of
Balayan, Batangas or even failed to specify the manner of how the application for
the Search Warrant before the said court would somehow come to the knowledge
of the accused.

14. In addition, a careful perusal of the stenographic notes would show that witnesses
likewise did not even state how the application to the Search Warrant will come to
the knowledge of the subject thereof.

To illustrate5:
T: For records purposes, maaari ninyo ba uling sabihin kung ano ang dahilan ninyo bakit
dito kayo nag-apply ng Search Warrant?

S: Dahil taga Balayan din po ang aming subjects at duon din sa lugar na iyon sila
gumagawa ng mga illegal nilang gawain, nangangamba po kaming ito’y makarating sa
kanilang kaalaman dahil sigurado pong marami silang kakilala sa kanilang lugar at ito po ang
dahilan para po mabalewala ang aming pagsisikap na mahuli ang aming mga subjects, your
Honor.

5
TSN dated July 3, 2017, pp. 2-3.
 T: At ano ang dahilan at nasabi mo yan?

S: Maaari pong mabalewala po an gaming application kung magkakaganon po at iyon po

ang aming iniiwasan.

T: Sinasabi ninyong wala kayong tiwala sa mga huwes o staff sa husgado ng Batangas?

S: Hindi naman po sa ganoon, your Honor, nag-aalala po kasi kami na ito ay makarating
sa aming mga subjects at sila ay makaalis na at kung dito po kami mag-aapply ay
maiimplement po namin ito agad. At upang sila ay mahuli na.

x x x

15. Evidently, the compelling reason given by the applicant and witnesses is just
based on conjectures and suppositions and not based on facts.

MANIFESTATION

16. It appears that other than the cases pending before this Honorable Court, to wit,
Criminal Case No. 8485, there is other case arising out of the same incident.

17. Upon perusal of the records, it appears that the other criminal case arising out
from the same incident herein has been filed to the Regional Trial Court, Branch
11 of the Balayan, Batangas docketed as Criminal Case No. 8584;

18. It appears that the lowest docket number is with Branch IX, Regional Trial Court,
Balayan, Batangas. Accordingly, the consolidation of herein case with the lowest
docket number is warranted.

Violation of the Constitutional Rights of the Accused

19. The right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined by implication in our

Constitution. It has many dimensions. One of its dimensions is its protection
through the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures in Article III,
Section 2 of the Constitution, viz. –

ARTICLE III

BILL OF RIGHTS

“xxx SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to
be seized.”

Section 2, Article III of the Constitution protects our people from unreasonable
search and seizure. This provision protects not only those who appear to be innocent
but also those who appear to be guilty but are nevertheless to be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved.6

6
MPH Garments, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86729, September 2, 1984.
 20. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Any
evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding. While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary
to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law implemented without
contravening the constitutional rights of citizens, for the enforcement of no statute
is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of
government.7

21. Consequently, in the present case, it cannot be said that the accused Rico
Bayaborda was validly arrested considering the fact that the search conducted to his
house was illegal and unreasonable. Thus, the alleged illegal items (e.g. One sling bag
color red marked as RAB with one piece of cal. 38 revolver Smith and Wesson with SN
041441 marked as RAB-2; one holster color camouflage marked as RAB-1; four pieces
of live ammunitions of caliber .38 revolver marked as RAB-3 to RAB-6; and one piece of
opened plastic sachet marked as RAB-7 containing four small pieces of heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance marked as RAB-8 to
RAB-11) found at his house are inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit
of the poisonous tree as mandated by the above discussed constitutional provision.
Hence, the acquittal of Accused should therefore come as a matter of course.

22. Any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable

searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding, as
provided under Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, viz. –

“ARTICLE III
“BILL OF RIGHTS
“SECTION 3. xxx
“(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.”

23. The exclusionary rule under Section 3 (2), Article III of the Constitution
bars the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the inviolable right of the people
to be secure in their persons and properties against unreasonable searches and seizures as
defined under Section 2, Article III thereof.8

24. What is unequivocal in the present case are the blatant violation of the
rights of Accused that are solemnly guaranteed in Sections 2 and 3 of Article III of the
Constitution.

25. The guilt of the Accused can only be established without violating the
constitutional right of the Accused against unreasonable searches and seizures.

26. Furthermore, it is noteworthy to remember that the failure of the accused

to file a motion to quash the Search Warrant before arraignment cannot be considered as
a waiver of his right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Likewise, such failure cannot serve to cure the inherent defect of the warrant. To uphold
the validity of the void warrant would be to disregard one of the most fundamental rights
guaranteed of our Constitution. As reiterated in the case of Honesto Ogayon vs. People of

7
Luz vs. People, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012.
8
Caballes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002.
the Philippines9, the ends of justice are better served if the supremacy of the
constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is preserved over technical
rules of procedure.

27. In view of the foregoing Accused Rico Bayaborda must necessarily be

ACQUITTED.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court the following that –

1. The Motion to Quash the Search Warrant (Search Warrant No. B-234 (17)
be granted;

2. The Motion to Suppress Evidence for Criminal Case No. 8485 be granted;

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.

October 8, 2017. Balayan, Batangas.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

DOJ-Balayan District Office
Hall of Justice
Balayan, Batangas

By:

MERLO VINIA C. SILVA

Public Attorney I

THE CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Branch IX
Balayan, Batangas

9
G.R. No. 188794, September 2, 2015.
GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration of the Honorable Court
immediately upon receipt hereof.

MERLO VINIA C. SILVA

CC:

Office of the Public Prosecutor

Balayan, Batangas