Nala vs. Barroso Jr.

2003 - INVALID Purpose of the constitutional provision against unlawful searches and seizures is to prevent violations of private security in person and property, and unlawful invasion of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law acting under legislative or judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpations when attempted. Requisites of a valid warrant of arrest 1) Probable cause present NO; nowhere in affidavit and testimony was it mentioned that petitioner had no license to possess a firearm 2) Such presence determined personally by judge NO; fell short of the required probing and exhaustive inquiry for the determination of the existence of probable cause 3) Complainant and witnesses produced are personally examined by the judge, in writing and under path of affirmation - YES 4) Applicant and witnesses testify on facts personally known to them NO; only personal belief, not personal knowledge 5) Warrant specifically describes the person and place to be searched and the things to be seized YES; though failed to correctly state name, additional description of alias Lolong Nala said to be residing at Purok 4, Poblacion, Kitaotao, Bukidnon was sufficient enough Where entry into the premises to be searched was gained by virtue of a void warrant, prohibited articles seized in the course are inadmissible against the accused. Moreover, it does not follow that because an offense is malum prohibitum, the subject theoreof is necessarily illegal per se. Motive is immaterial to mala prohibita, but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. A warrant is still necessary, because possession of any firearm becomes unlawful only if the required permit or license therefor is not obtained. Plain view doctrine cannot be justified, can only be applied if the following requisites occur: 1) Law officer in search of evidence has prior justification for an intrusion NO; warrant invalid 2) Discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent NO; no proof established 3) Immediately apparent to officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure

Lim, Sr. vs. Felix 1991 - INVALID Whether or not a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by simply relying on the prosecutions certification and recommendation that a probable cause exists Only explains the requisite that probable cause should be personally determined by the judge If a Judge relies solely on the certification of the Prosecutor as in this case where all other records of the investigation are in Masbate, he or she has not personally determined probably cause. The determination is made by the Provincial Prosecutor. The constitutional requirement has not been satisfied GAD.

Judge is not precluded from relying on the evidence earlier gathered by responsible officer, and extent of his reliance is subject to his sound discretion. But, the Judge abuses that discretion when having no evidence before him he issues a warrant of arrest.

Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas 1937 - ILLEGAL It is the general rule that statutes authorizing searches and seizures or search warrants must be strictly construed, to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation of the rights secure by the constitutional guaranties. Sec 1, par 3 of Art III of 1935 Consti and Sec 97 of GO No. 58 require: 1) Probable cause 2) Based upon an application supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce NO; warrant insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oath was made The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for damages caused. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure in any particular case is a purely judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved. Neither Sec 1, par 3 of Art III of 1935 Consti and Sec 97 of GO No. 58 provide that it is of imperative necessity to take depositions of the witnesses to be presented by the applicant or complainant in addition to the affidavit of the latter. The purpose of both in requiring the presentation of depositions is nothing more than to satisfy the committing magistrate of the existence of probable cause. Affidavit to be presented must contain particular description of the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. These provisions are mandatory and must be strictly complied with; but where, by nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, it is not required that a technical description be given, as this would mean that no warrant could issue. Re: nature of articles described in the warrant, it is clear that no other more adequate and detailed description could have been given. The description so made substantially complies with the legal provisions because the officer of the law who executed the warrant was thereby placed in a position enabling him to identify the articles, which he did. Articles seized in order that the anti-Usury Board might provide itself with evidence to be sued by it in a criminal case which might be filed against complainant makes the warrant INVALID violation of the constitutional provision prohibiting the compulsion of an accused to testify against himself.

Bache & Co. (Phil.), Inc. vs. Ruiz Respondent Judge failed to personally examine the complainant and his witness.