PEOPLE V MAMARIL

GR 147607
January 22, 2004
Facts:
SPO2 Chito Esmenda applied before the RTC for a
search warrant authorizing the search for marijuana
at the family residence of appellant Mamaril. 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 appellant and the barangay officials who
witnessed the search.
The PNP Crime Laboratory issued a report finding the
seized specimens positive for the presence of
marijuana. Moreover, the examination on the urine
sample of appellant affirmed that it was positive for
the same.
Appellant denied that he was residing at his parents
house, and that he was at his parents house when
the search was conducted only because he visited his
mother. He also said that he saw the Receipt of
Property Seized for the first time during the trial,
although he admitted that the signature on the
certification that the house was properly search was
his.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in issuing a
search warrant
Ruling:
Yes. The issuance of a search warrant is justified only
upon a finding of probable cause.
Probable cause for a search has been defined as 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.
In determining the existence of probable cause, it is
required that:
o The judge must examine the complaint and
his witnesses personally
o The examination must be under oath
o The examination must be reduced in writing in
the form of searching questions and answers
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.
When the Branch Clerk of Court was required to
testify on the available records kept in their office, he
was only able to present before the court the
application for search warrant and supporting
affidavits. Neither transcript of the proceedings of a
searching question and answer nor the sworn
statements of the complainant and his witnesses
showing that the judge examined them in the form of
searching questions and answers in writing was
presented. 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 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.
No matter how incriminating the articles taken from
the appellant may be, their seizure cannot validate
an invalid warrant. Consequently, the evidence
seized pursuant to an illegal search warrant cannot
be used in evidence against appellant.