PICOP V.

ASUNCION
C. Requisites for issuance
Facts:
Police officer applied for a search warrant for the alleged possession
of firearms, ammunitions explosives which are the subject of the
offense, or used or intended to be used in committing the offense.
Judge Asuncion issued a search warrant against Philippine industries
corp. of the Philippines (P!"P#. Afterwards, the police office came
into effect such warrant and able to sei$ed the alleged firearms,
ammunitions and explosives.
P!"P alleged that the search and sei$ure was illegal, the% filed for
motion to &uash before the trial court.
ssue:
'() the search warrant was valid
*uling:
)o. the search warrant is invalid because (+# the trial court failed to
examine personall% the complainant and the other deponents, (-#
.P"/ !icero 0acolod, who appeared during the hearing for the
issuance of the search warrant, had no personal 1nowledge that
petitioners were not licensed to possess the subject firearms, and (/#
the place to be searched was not described with particularit%.
PEOPLE V. ESTRADA
(1) Concet of ro!a!"e cause in searc# $arrants
Facts:
2otion for the return of sei$ed goods on the ground that the warrant
was illegal. Further, the sei$ed medicines were found genuine but
were onl% illegall% imported.
*uling:
3ven if the medicines were genuine if the seller has no permit from
the appropriate government agenc%, the drugs or medicines cannot be
returned although the search warrant was declared illegal.
STONE%ILL V. DIO&NO
Search and Seizure General Warrants Abandonment of the
Moncado Doctrine
Facts:
.tonehill et al and the corporation the% form were alleged to have
committed acts in 4violation of !entral 0an1 5aws, 6ariff and
!ustoms 5aws, nternal *evenue (!ode# and *evised Penal !ode.7
0% the strength of this allegation a search warrant was issued against
their persons and their corporation. 6he warrant provides authorit% to
search the persons above8named and(or the premises of their offices,
warehouses and(or residences, and to sei$e and ta1e possession of the
following personal propert% to wit:
40oo1s of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence,
receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, t%pewriters, and
other documents and(or papers showing all business transactions
including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss
statements and 0obbins (cigarette wrappers#.7
6he documents, papers, and things sei$ed under the alleged authorit%
of the warrants in &uestion ma% be split into (-# major groups,
namel%:
(a# those found and sei$ed in the offices of the aforementioned
corporations and
(b# those found sei$ed in the residences of petitioners herein.
.tonehill averred that the warrant is illegal for:
(+# the% do not describe with particularit% the documents, boo1s and
things to be sei$ed,
(-# cash mone%, not mentioned in the warrants, were actuall% sei$ed,
(/# the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the
aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against them,
(9# the searches and sei$ures were made in an illegal manner, and
(:# the documents, papers and cash mone% sei$ed were not delivered
to the courts that issued the warrants, to be disposed of in accordance
with law.
6he prosecution counters, invo1ing the 2oncado doctrine, that the
defects of said warrants, if an%, were cured b% petitioners; consent,
and (/# that, in an% event, the effects sei$ed are admissible in
evidence against them. n short, the criminal cannot be set free just
because the government blunders.
..<3:
'hether or not the search warrant issued is valid.
*uling:
6he .! ruled in favor of .tonehill et al. 6he .! emphasi$ed however
that .tonehill et al cannot assail the validit% of the search warrant
issued against their corporation for .tonehill are not the proper part%
hence has no cause of action. t should be raised b% the officers or
board members of the corporation. 6he constitution protects the
people;s right against unreasonable search and sei$ure.
t provides, (+# that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause,
to be determined b% the judge in the manner set forth in said
provision, and (-# that the warrant shall particularl% describe the
things to be sei$ed. n the case at bar, none of these are met. 6he
warrant was issued from mere allegation that .tonehill et al
committed a 4violation of !entral 0an1 5aws, 6ariff and !ustoms
1
5aws, nternal *evenue (!ode# and *evised Penal !ode.7 n other
words, no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. 6he
averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were
abstract. As a conse&uence, it was impossible for the judges who
issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for
the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the
part% against whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or
committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our
criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this
case do not allege an% specific acts performed b% herein petitioners. t
would be a legal heres%, of the highest order, to convict an%bod% of a
4violation of !entral 0an1 5aws, 6ariff and !ustoms 5aws, nternal
*evenue (!ode# and *evised Penal !ode,7 = as alleged in the
aforementioned applications = without reference to an% determinate
provision of said laws or codes. 6he grave violation of the
!onstitution made in the application for the contested search warrants
was compounded b% the description therein made of the effects to be
searched for and sei$ed, to wit:
40oo1s of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals,
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit journals,
t%pewriters, and other documents and(or papers showing all business
transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and
related profit and loss statements.7
6hus, the warrants authori$ed the search for and sei$ure of records
pertaining to all business transactions of .tonehill et al, regardless of
whether the transactions were legal or illegal. 6he warrants
sanctioned the sei$ure of all records of .tonehill et al and the
aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature, thus openl%
contravening the explicit command of the 0ill of *ights = that the
things to be sei$ed be particularl% described = as well as tending to
defeat its major objective: the elimination of general warrants. 6he
2oncado doctrine is li1ewise abandoned and the right of the accused
against a defective search warrant is emphasi$ed.
'ICROSO(T CORPORATION V. 'A)ICORP
Intellectual Property Law on opyri!ht Probable ause in
Issuin! Search Warrant
Facts:
n +>>?, @ominador .amiano, an agent of the )ational 0ureau of
nvestigation ()0# conducted a surveillance against 2axicorp nc.
Ae observed that 2icrosoft .oftware ('indows "perating .%stems#
were being produced and pac1aged within the premises of 2axicorp.
.amiano, together with a civilian witness (John 0enedict .acri$# then
bought a computer unit from 2axicorp. 6he unit was pre8installed
with a pirated cop% of 'indows. For their purchase, the% were issued
a receipt, however, the receipt was in the name of a certain 4Joel
@ia$7. .ubse&uentl%, .amiano applied for a search warrant before the
*6!. Ae brought with him .acri$ as witness. Ae also brought the
computer unit the% bought as evidence as well as the receipt. Ae even
added an additional witness (Felixberto Pante#, a computer
technician, who showed the judge that the software in the computer
unit bought b% .amiano from 2axicorp was pirated. 6he *6! judge,
convinced that there is a probable cause for a case of cop%right
infringement and unfair competition committed b% 2axicorp, issued
the corresponding warrant. 2axicorp assailed the legalit% of the
warrant before the !ourt of Appeals. 6he !ourt of Appeals ruled in
favor of 2axicorp and in its decision it highlighted the fact that the
receipt issued was not in .amiano;s or .acri$; name hence the
proceeding in the trial court was infirm from the onset.
..<3:
'hether or not the !ourt of Appeals is correct.
*uling:
)o. 6he testimonies of the two witnesses, coupled with the object and
documentar% evidence the% presented, are sufficient to establish the
existence of probable cause. From what the% have witnessed, there is
reason to believe that 2axicorp engaged in cop%right infringement
and unfair competition to the prejudice of 2icrosoft. 0oth )0 Agent
.amiano and .acri$ were clear and insistent that the counterfeit
software were not onl% displa%ed and sold within 2axicorp;s
premises, the% were also produced, pac1aged and in some cases,
installed there.
6he fact that the receipt issued was not in .amiano;s name nor was it
in .acri$; name does not render the issuance of the warrant void. )o
law or rule states that probable cause re&uires a specific 1ind of
evidence. )o formula or fixed rule for its determination exists.
Probable cause is determined in the light of conditions obtaining in a
given situation.6hus, it was improper for the !ourt of Appeals to
reverse the *6!;s findings simpl% because the sales receipt
evidencing )0 Agent .amiano;s purchase of counterfeit goods is not
in his name.
PEOPLE V. TUAN
(*) Deter+inin, ro!a!"e cause
i) Person Aut#ori-e./ 0#o .eter+ines1
Facts:
"n Januar% -BBB, two informants namel%, 6udlong and 5ad8ing
arrived at the office of !@C (!riminal nvestigation and @etention
Croup# in 0aguio !it%, and reported to .P"- Fernande$, !hief of the
.tation @rug 3nforcement <nit (.@3<#, that a certain D3stela 6uanD
had been selling marijuana at 0aranga% Cabriela .ilang, 0aguio !it%.
.P"- Fernande$ set out to verif% the report of 6udlong and 5ad8ing.
"n the afternoon of the same da%, he gave 6udlong and 5ad8ing
P/BB.BB to bu% marijuana, and accompanied the two informants to
the accused 6uan;s house. 6udlong and 5ad8ing entered the house,
while .P"- Fernande$ waited at the adjacent house. 5ater, 6udlong
and 5ad8ing came out and showed .P"- Fernande$ the marijuana
the% bought. <pon returning to the !@C office, .P"- Fernande$
re&uested a laborator% examination on the specimen and %ielded
positive results for marijuana.
2
.P"- Fernande$, together with the informants, filed the Application
for a .earch 'arrant before Judge luminada !abato8!ortes (Judge
!ortes# of the 2unicipal 6rial !ourt in !ities (26!!#, 0aguio !it%
on Januar% -:, -BBB. 6wo hours later, at around three o;cloc1, Judge
!ortes personall% examined .P"- Fernande$, 6udlong, and 5ad8ing,
after which, she issued a .earch 'arrant, which stated 6uan;s
residence as 4the house of the accused 3stela 6uan at 0rg%. Cabriela
.ilang, 0aguio !it%7
3ven though accused 6uan was not around, the !@C team was
allowed entr% into the house b% 2agno 0aludda (2agno#, accused;s
father, after he was shown a cop% of the .earch 'arrant. .P"-
Fernande$ guarded the surroundings of the house, while .P"+
!arrera and P"- !have$ searched inside. 6he% saw, in the presence
of 2agno, a movable cabinet in 6uan;s room, below of which the%
found a bric1 of marijuana and a firearm. 5ater 6uan arrived and
thereafter, the police officers as1ed 6uan to open a cabinet, in which
the% saw more bric1s of marijuana. 6he defense, on the other hand,
disclaimed ownership of the bric1s and alleged that a .earch 'arrant
was issued for her house because of a &uarrel with her neighbor
named 5ourdes 3stillore (3stillore#. 6he *6! found accused guilt% as
charged. "n appeal, the !A modified b% ac&uitting 6uan of the
charge for illegal possession of firearm but affirming her conviction
for illegal possession of marijuana. 6uan raised the matter to the
.upreme !ourt contending, among others, that the warrant failed to
particularl% describe the place because the house was a two8store%
building composed of several rooms.
ssue:
'hether there was probable cause for the judge to issue a .earch
'arrant and whether the search warrant particularl% described the
place to be searched.
*uling:
'hether there was probable cause for the judge to issue a .earch
'arrant
E3.. 6he validit% of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the
following factors: (+# it must be issued upon probable cause, (-# the
probable cause must be determined b% the judge himself and not b%
the applicant or an% other person, (/# in the determination of probable
cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the
complainant and such witnesses as the latter ma% produce, and (9# the
warrant issued must particularl% describe the place to be searched and
persons or things to be sei$ed.
6he onl% issue is compliance with the first and fourth factors, i.e.,
existence of probable cause, and particular description of the place to
be searched and things to be sei$ed.
Probable cause generall% signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported b% circumstances sufficientl% strong in themselves to
warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilt% of
the offense with which he is charged. t li1ewise refers to the
existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a
reasonabl% discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the item(s#, article(s# or object(s# sought in
connection with said offense or subject to sei$ure and destruction b%
law is in the place to be searched.
0efore a search warrant can be issued, it must be shown b%
substantial evidence that the items sought are in fact sei$able b%
virtue of being connected with criminal activit%, and that the items
will be found in the place to be searched.
A magistrate;s determination of probable cause for the issuance of a
search warrant is paid great deference b% a reviewing court, as long
as there was substantial basis for that determination. .ubstantial basis
means that the &uestions of the examining judge brought out such
facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonabl% discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the
objects in connection with the offense sought to be sei$ed are in the
place sought to be searched..uch substantial basis exists in this case.
Judge !ortes found probable cause for the issuance of the .earch
'arrant for 6uan;s residence after said judge;s personal examination
of .P"- Fernande$, the applicant, and 5ad8ing and 6udlong, the
informants. .P"- Fernande$ based his Application for .earch
'arrant not onl% on the information rela%ed to him b% 5ad8ing and
6udlong. Ae also arranged for a test bu% and conducted surveillance
of 6uan.
'hether the search warrant particularl% described the place to be
searched.
E3.. A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the
officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and
identif% the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the
communit%. A designation or description that points out the place to
be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on in&uir% unerringl%
leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional re&uirement
of definiteness. n the case at bar, the address and description of the
place to be searched in the .earch 'arrant was specific enough.
6here was onl% one house located at the stated address, which was
accused8appellant;s residence, consisting of a structure with two
floors and composed of several rooms.
2AC%E V. RUI3
Facts:
.earch and .ei$ure F Personal 3xamination of the Judge
"n -9 Feb +>GB, !ommissioner Hera of nternal *evenue, wrote a
letter addressed to J *ui$ re&uesting the issuance of a search warrant
against petitioners for violation of .ec 9?(a# of the )*!, in relation
to all other pertinent provisions thereof, particularl% .ects :/, G-, G/,
-BI and -B>, and authori$ing *evenue 3xaminer de 5eon ma1e and
file the application for search warrant which was attached to the
letter. 6he next da%, de 5eon and his witnesses went to !F *i$al to
obtain the search warrant. At that time J *ui$ was hearing a certain
case, so, b% means of a note, he instructed his @eput% !ler1 of !ourt
to ta1e the depositions of @e 5eon and 5ogronio. After the session
had adjourned, J *ui$ was informed that the depositions had alread%
been ta1en. 6he stenographer read to him her stenographic notes, and
3
thereafter, J *ui$ as1ed respondent 5ogronio to ta1e the oath and
warned him that if his deposition was found to be false and without
legal basis, he could be charged for perjur%. J *ui$ signed de 5eon;s
application for search warrant and 5ogronio;s deposition. 6he search
was subse&uentl% conducted
ssue:
'hether or not there had been a valid search warrant.
*uling:
6he .! ruled in favor of 0ache on three grounds.
+. J *ui$ failed to personall% examine the complainant and his
witness.
Personal examination b% the judge of the complainant and his
witnesses is necessar% to enable him to determine the existence or
non8existence of a probable cause.
-. 6he search warrant was issued for more than one specific offense.
6he search warrant in &uestion was issued for at least four distinct
offenses under the 6ax !ode. As ruled in .tonehill 4.uch is the
seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection with the
disputed search warrants, that this !ourt deemed it fit to amend
.ection / of *ule +-- of the former *ules of !ourt that Ja search
warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with
one specific offense.; )ot satisfied with this &ualification, the !ourt
added thereto a paragraph, directing that Jno search warrant shall
issue for more than one specific offense.
/. 6he search warrant does not particularl% describe the things to be
sei$ed.
6he documents, papers and effects sought to be sei$ed are described
in the .earch 'arrant
4<nregistered and private boo1s of accounts (ledgers, journals,
columnars, receipts and disbursements boo1s, customers ledgers#,
receipts for pa%ments received, certificates of stoc1s and securities,
contracts, promissor% notes and deeds of sale, telex and coded
messages, business communications, accounting and business
records, chec1s and chec1 stubs, records of ban1 deposits and
withdrawals, and records of foreign remittances, covering the %ears
+>?? to +>GB.7
6he description does not meet the re&uirement in Art , .ec. +, of
the !onstitution, and of .ec. /, *ule +-? of the *evised *ules of
!ourt, that the warrant should particularl% describe the things to be
sei$ed.
A search warrant ma% be said to particularl% describe the things to be
sei$ed when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances
will ordinaril% allow or when the description expresses a conclusion
of fact not of law b% which the warrant officer ma% be guided in
ma1ing the search and sei$ure or when the things described are
limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the
warrant is being issued.
ROAN V. 4ON3ALES
ii.) Proce.ure/ %o$ is it .eter+ine.1 Persona" e5a+ination !6
searc#in, questions of co+"aint of $itness/
(0ache, Kho, P!"P, 6<A)#
Facts:
6he challenged search warrant was issued b% the respondent judge on
2a% +B, +>I9. 6he petitioner;s house was searched two da%s later
but none of the articles listed in the warrant was discovered.
Aowever, the officers conducting the search found in the premises
one !olt 2agnum revolver and eighteen live bullets which the%
confiscated. 6he% are now the bases of the charge against the
petitioner.
*espondent Judge said that when P! !apt. 2auro P. Luinosa
personall% filed his application for a search warrant on 2a% +B, +>I9,
he appeared before him in the compan% of his two (-# witnesses,
3smael 2orada and Jesus 6ohilida, both of whom li1ewise presented
to him their respective affidavits ta1en b% Pat. Josue H. 5ining, a
police investigator. As the application was not %et subscribed and
sworn to, he proceeded to examine !aptain Luillosa on the contents
thereof to ascertain, among others, if he 1new and understood the
same. Afterwards, he subscribed and swore to the same before him.
ssue:
'hether the *espondent Judge failed to compl% with the proper
procedure in issuing the .earch 'arrant.
*uling:
Ees, mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not
sufficient. 6he examining Judge has to ta1e depositions in writing of
the complainant and the witnesses he ma% produce and attach them to
the record. .uch written deposition is necessar% in order that the
Judge ma% be able to properl% determine the existence or non8
existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjur% the person
giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false.
'e, therefore, hold that the search warrant is tainted with illegalit% b%
the failure of the Judge to conform with the essential re&uisites of
ta1ing the depositions in writing and attaching them to the record,
rendering the search warrant invalid. (.ee *ule +-?, .ec 9#
6he respondent judge also declared that he 4saw no need to have
applicant Luillosa;s deposition ta1en considering that he was
appl%ing for a search warrant on the basis of the information
provided b% the witnesses whose depositions had alread% been ta1en
b% the undersigned.
n other words, the applicant was as1ing for the issuance of the
search warrant on the basis of mere hearsa% and not of information
personall% 1nown to him, as re&uired b% settled jurisprudence.
4
&%O V. 'A&ALINTAL
(7) Descrition of t#in,s to !e sei-e.
(0ache#
Facts:
Petitioners sought to restrain the respondent )0 from using the
objects sei$ed b% virtue of such warrants in an% case or cases filed
or to be filed against them and to return immediatel% the said items,
including the firearms, ammunition and explosives, radio
communication e&uipment, hand sets, transceivers, two units of
vehicles and motorc%cle.
Petitioners &uestion the issuance of subject search warrants,
theori$ing upon the absence of an% probable cause therefor. 6he%
contend that the surveillance and investigation conducted b% )0
agents within the premises involved, prior to the application for the
search warrants under controvers%, were not sufficient to vest in the
applicants personal 1nowledge of facts and circumstances showing or
indicating the commission of a crime b% them (petitioners#.
ssue:
'hether petitioners; contention of the absence of probable cause in
the given situation is tenable.
5