Roans house was searched by virtue of a search warrant and the said search was performed by military authorities. During their search, the authorities found a Colt Magnum revolver and 18 live bullets which they confiscated and served as bases for the charge of illegal possession of firearms. However, the application of said search warrant was based on the accounts of two witnesses. The applicant did not have personal knowledge of said firearm. Facts: 1. A search warrant was issued by respondent judge (Gonzales) on May 10, 1984. Application for the said search warrant was personally filed by PC Capt. Mauro Quillosa. Together with Quillosa were two witnesses (Esmael Morada and Jesus Tohilida), who presented to respondent judge their respective affidavits. The application was not yet subscribed and sworn to, as such respondent Judge proceeded to examine Quillosa on the contents of the application to ascertain if he knew and understood the same. Afterwards, Quillosa subscribed and swore the said application before respondent. 2. Petitioners (Josefino Roan) house was searched two days after the issuance of the search warrant. The said search was performed by military authorities. Despite none of the articles listed in the warrant was discovered, the officers who conducted the search found one Colt Magnum revolver and 18 live bullets which they confiscated. The said items served as bases for the charge of illegal possession of firearms against the petitioner. Issue: Whether or not a search warrant be annulled on the ground that it violates the privacy of one persons house Ruling/Decision: 1. To be valid, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause to be determined by the judge or some authorized officer after examining the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. There must be a specific description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized, to prevent arbitrary and indiscriminate use of the warrant. Probable cause, as described by Judge Escolin in Burgos v. Chief of Staff, refers to such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. The probable cause must refer to only one specific offense. 2. The applicant (Capt. Quillosa) was asking for the issuance of the search warrant on the basis of mere hearsay and not of information personally known to him as required by settled jurisprudence.
3. It is axiomatic that the magistrate must be probing and exhaustive, not
merely routinary or pro-forma, if the claimed probable cause is to be established. The examining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application. 4. Prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the search is valid. In this case, it was not because: (a) there was no valid search warrant; and (b) absent such a warrant, the right thereto was not validly waived by the petitioner. In short, the military officers who entered the petitioners premises had no right to be there and therefore had no right to seize the pistol and bullets.
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Lo Ho Wing Alias Peter Lo, Lim Cheng Huat Alias Antonio Lim and Reynaldo Tia y Santiago, Defendants. Lo Ho Wing Alias Peter Lo, Defendant-Appellant.