Pasion Vda. De Garcia vs. Locsin In view of the foregoing, the writ prayed for is granted.
In view of the foregoing, the writ prayed for is granted. The search warrant, Exhibit B, is hereby
Posted on April 2, 2013 by winnieclaire
S judge are set aside; and the respondents Anti-Usuary Board and the provincial fiscal of Tarlac or those
tandard
65 Phil 68 (1938)
ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES > Examination of witnesses
Facts: Mariano G. Almeda, an agent of the Anti-Usuary Board, obtained from the justice of the
peace of Tarlac, a search warrant commanding any officer of the law to search the person,
house or store of the petitioner at Victoria, Tarlac, for certain books, lists, chits, receipts,
documents and other papers relating to her activities as usurer.
The search warrant was issued upon an affidavit given by the said Almeda that he has just and
probable reason to believe that the petiotioner keeps and conceals in her house in Tarlac,
items that would prove to her activities as a usurer .
On the same date, the said Mariano G. Almeda, accompanied by a captain of the Philippine
Constabulary, went to the office of the petitioner in Victoria, Tarlac and, after showing the
search warrant to the petitioners bookkeeper, Alfredo Salas, and, without the presence of the
petitioner who was ill and confined at the time, proceeded with the execution thereof
The papers and documents seized were kept for a considerable length of time by the Anti-
Usury Board and thereafter were turned over by it to the respondent fiscal who subsequently
filed six separate criminal cases against the herein petitioner for violation of the Anti-Usury Law.
The petitioner, through her counsel, wrote a letter demanding from the respondent Anti-Usury
Board the return of the documents seized, but to no vain.
The legality of the search warrant was challenged by counsel for the petitioner in the six
criminal cases and the devolution of the documents demanded. The respondent Judge denied
the petitioners motion for the reason that though the search warrant was illegal, there was a
waiver on the part of the petitioner.
A motions for reconsideration was presented but denied.
Current case was filed for a petition for mandamus presented to secure the annulment of a search
warrant and two orders of the respondent judge, and the restoration of certain documents alleged to
have been illegally seized by an agent of the Anti-Usuary Board.
Issue:
1. W/N the search warrant is valid.
2.W/N there has been a waiver by the petitioner of her constitutional immunity against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
HELD:
1.No, the search warrant is void. A search warrant is valid when:
(1) it must be issued upon probable cause;
(2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant
or any other person;
(3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation,
the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce;
(4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or
things to be seized.
In the instant case the existence of probable cause was determined not by the judge
himself but by the applicant. All that the judge did was to accept as true the affidavit
made by agent Almeda. He did not decide for himself. It does not appear that he examined
the applicant and his witnesses, if any. Even accepting the description of the properties to be
seized to be sufficient and on the assumption that the receipt issued is sufficiently detailed
within the meaning of the law, the properties seized were not delivered to the court which
issued the warrant, as required by law.
2. No express waiver has been made on this case. To constitute a waiver of a constitutional right,
it must appear that:
1. that the right exists
2. the persons involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of
such right
3. that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right
The petitioner could not have objected because she was sick and was not present when the warrant
was served upon Alfredo Salas.The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures
cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly
authorized to do so in his or her behalf. A peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent
or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. The
demand for the return of the documents seized is not such as to result in waiver
declared void and of no effect; the orders of October 5, 1937 and January 3, 1938 of the respondent
acting in their behalf, are hereby ordered to return and restore to the petitioner all the properties,
documents, papers and effects illegally seized from her, within forty-eight (48) hours from the time this
decision becomes final. Without costs. So ordered.
Alvarez vs. CFI
Posted on April 2, 2013 by winnieclaire
S
tandard
64 Phil. 33 (1937)
ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES > Examination of witnesses
Facts: The Anti-Usury Board of the Department of Justice presented to Judge David a sworn
affidavit that a certain Narciso Alvarez is in possession of books, receipts, chits, lists used by
him as money lender/usurer charging usurious rates in violation of law. Affiant Almeda, chief of
the task force, didnt say that the information was based on his personal knowledge but was
only received by him from a reliable source. Subsequently, the judge issued the warrant
ordering the search of Alvarez house. On June 4, 1936, the agents raided the subject place
and seized different documents namely, banknotes, bankbooks, stubs, cashbooks, bills of
lading, credit receipts, etc. Thereafter, the articles seized was not brought immediately to the
custody of the judge who issued the SW. Alvarez moved that the agents of the Board be
declared guilty of contempt and prays that all articles in question be returned to him because
the SW issued was illegal. On the other hand, the Anti-Usury Board pleaded that they be
allowed to retain custody of the articles seized for further investigation. When the judge
sustained the latters motion. Alvarez elevated the matter to the SC and prayed that the search
warrant as well as the order of the judge authorizing the Anti-Usury Board to retain custody be
declared null and void.
Issue: Whether the SW issued by the judge is illegal for having solely as basis the affidavit of
Agent Almeda in whose oath the latter declared that he had no personal knowledge of the facts
which were to serve as basis for the issuance of the warrant but he had knowledge thereof only
through information secured from a person whom he considered reliable.
Ruling: Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Constitution and Section 97 of General
Orders 58 require that there be not only probable cause before the issuance of a search
warrant but that the search warrant must be based upon an application supported by oath of
the applicant and the witnesses he may produce. In its broadest sense, an oath includes any
form of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act
faithfully and truthfully; and it is sometimes defined as an outward pledge given by the person
taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility
to God. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal
knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to
convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking
the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause. 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. The affidavit, which served as the exclusive basis of the search warrant,
is insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oath was made, and
therefore, the search warrant and the subsequent seizure of the books, documents and other
papers are illegal. Further, it is the practice in this jurisdiction to attach the affidavit of at least
the applicant or complainant to the application. It is admitted that the judge who issued the
search warrant in this case, relied exclusively upon the affidavit made by agent Almeda and
that he did not require nor take the deposition of any other witness. The Constitution does not
provide that it is of an imperative necessity to take the 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. Therefore, if the affidavit of the
applicant or complainant is sufficient, the judge may dispense with that of other witnesses.
Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent was insufficient because his knowledge of the facts was
not personal but merely hearsay, it is the duty of the judge to require the affidavit of one or
more witnesses for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause to warrant the
issuance of the search warrant. When the affidavit of the applicant or complainant contains
sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge, it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied
that there exists probable cause; when the applicants knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay,
the affidavit of one or more witnesses having a personal knowledge of the facts is necessary.
Thus the warrant issued is likewise illegal because it was based only on the affidavit of the
agent who had no personal knowledge of the facts
Mata vs. Bayona
Posted on April 2, 2013 by winnieclaire
S
tandard
G.R. No. L-50720, 26 March 1984
ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES > Examination of witnesses
FACTS: Soriano Mata was accused under Presidential Decree (PD) 810, as amended by PD 1. Petitioners, had no personal knowledge of the facts
1306, the information against him alleging that Soriano Mata offered, took and arranged bets 2. The examination of the said witness was not in form of searching questions and
on the Jai Alai game by selling illegal tickets known as Masiao tickets without any authority answers
from the Philippine Jai Alai & Amusement Corporation or from the government authorities
concerned. Mata claimed that during the hearing of the case, he discovered that nowhere from 3. Search warrant was a general warrant
the records of the said case could be found the search warrant and other pertinent papers
connected to the issuance of the same, so that he had to inquire from the City Fiscal its 4. Violation of Circular No. 19 of the Supreme Court in that the complainant failed to
whereabouts, and to which inquiry Judge Josephine K. Bayona, presiding Judge of the City allege under oath that the issuance of the search warrant on a Saturday, urgent.
Court of Ormoc replied, it is with the court. The Judge then handed the records to the Fiscal
who attached them to the records. This led Mata to file a motion to quash and annul the search
warrant and for the return of the articles seized, citing and invoking, among others, Section 4 of
Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. The motion was denied by the Judge on 1 March
1979, stating that the court has made a thorough investigation and examination under oath of
Bernardo U. Goles and Reynaldo T. Mayote, members of the Intelligence Section of 352nd PC ISSUE:
Co./Police District II INP; that in fact the court made a certification to that effect; and that the
fact that documents relating to the search warrant were not attached immediately to the record Whether or not the search and seizure was valid?
of the criminal case is of no moment, considering that the rule does not specify when these
documents are to be attached to the records. Matas motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid
order having been denied, he came to the Supreme Court, with the petition for certiorari,
praying, among others, that the Court declare the search warrant to be invalid for its alleged
failure to comply with the requisites of the Constitution and the Rules of Court, and that all the
HELD:
articles confiscated under such warrant as inadmissible as evidence in the case, or in any
proceedings on the matter.
ISSUE: WON the judge must before issuing the warrant personally examine on oath or Search Warrant annulled and set aside.
affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in
writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him?
HELD:YES. Under the Constitution no search warrant shall issue but upon probable cause to
be determined by the Judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. RATIONALE:
More emphatic and detailed is the implementing rule of the constitutional injunction, The Rules
provide that the judge must before issuing the warrant personally examine on oath or
affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their Valid search warrant to issue, there must be probable cause, which is to be determined
depositions in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits personally by the Judge, after examination under oath and affirmation of the complainant, and
presented to him. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not that witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the persons and things to be seized. The probable cause must be in connection with one specific
witnesses he may produce and to attach them to the record. Such written deposition is offense and the Judge must, before issuing Search Warrant, personally examine in the form of
necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or searching questions and answers, In writing and under oath, the complainant and any
nonexistence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be witnesses he may produce, on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their
found later that his declarations are false. We, therefore, hold that the search warrant is tainted sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted.
with illegality by the failure of the Judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the
depositions in writing and attaching them to the record, rendering the search warrant invalid.

Prudente vs Dayrit Case Digest Probable Cause for a valid search warrant, has been defined as such facts and
By maechmedina circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed, and that objects sought in connection which the offense are in
the place sought to be searched.
NEMESIO PRUDENTE vs Hon Judge ABELARDO M. DAYRIT
This probable case must be shown to be personal knowledge and of the complainant
G.R. No. 82870 December 14, 1989 and witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay.

LawPhils Full Text

link: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/dec1989/gr_82870_1989.html
PARTICULARITY

For violation of PD 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.) while the said decree punishes
FACTS: several offenses, the alleged violation in this case was, qualified by the phrase illegal
possession of firearms etc. Reformed to ammunitions and explosives. In other words, the
search warrant was issued for the specific offense of illegal possession of firearms and
The Chief of the Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) filed with the Regional Trial Court
explosives. Hence, the failure of the Search Warrant to mention the particular provision of PD1-
(RTC) Manila, Judge Abelardo Dayrit, for the issuance of Search Warrant for violation of PD
866 that was violated is not of such gravity as to call for the invalidation of this case.
No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearm, etc). In the deposition of witness (P/Lt. Florencio C.
Angeles), it was made mentioned of result of our continuous surveillance conducted for
several days. We gathered information from verified sources that the holders of said firearms Constitutional Law: PICOP vs. Asuncion GR 122092 May 19, 1999
and explosives as well as ammunitions arent licensed to possess said firearms and PICOP vs. Asuncion GR 122092 May 19, 1999
ammunition. Further, the premises is a school and the holders of these firearms are not student
who were not supposed to possess firearms, explosives and ammunitions.

Facts:

Person to be searched in Nemesio Prudente at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines,
Sta. Mesa, Sampaloc, Manila, has in his control or possession firearms, explosives hand
grenades and ammunitions which are illegally possesses at the office of Department of Military
1. The management of PICOP located at PICOP compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del
Science and Tactics and at the office of the President.
On January 25, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Napoleon B. Pascua applied for a search warrant
before the Quezon City RTC, stating:
Sur, represented by its Sr. Vice President Ricardo G. Santiago, is in possession or has in its
control high powered firearms, ammunitions, explosives, which are the subject of the offense,
or used or intended to be used in committing the offense, and which are being kept and
concealed in the premises described.

Petitioner moved to quash the Search Warrant. He claimed that:

2. That the Search Warrant should be issued to enable any agent of the law to take possession Constabulary Security Group (CSG). Milagros had been wanted as a high ranking officer of the
and bring to this Honorable Court the following described properties: CPP. The arrest took place at 11:30 a.m. of August 6, 1984. At noon of the same day, her
premises were searched and 428 documents, a portable typewriter and 2 boxes were seized.
a. 70 M16 Armalite rifles cal. 5.56 Earlier that day, Judge Cruz Pao issued a search warrant to be served at Aguilar-Roques
leased residence allegedly an underground house of the CPP/NPA. On the basis of the
b. 10 M16 US rifles documents seized, charges of subversion and rebellion by the CSG were filed by but the
fiscals office merely charged her and Nolasco with illegal possession of subversive materials.
Aguilar-Roque asked for suppression of the evidence on the ground that it was illegally
c. 2 AK-47 rifles
obtained and that the search warrant is void because it is a general warrant since it does not
sufficiently describe with particularity the things subject of the search and seizure, and that
d. 2 UZI submachine guns probable cause has not been properly established for lack of searching questions propounded
to the applicants witness.
e. 2 M203 Grenade Launchers cal. 40mm

f. 10 cal. 45 pistols ISSUE: WON the search warrant was valid?

HELD:
g. 10 cal. 38 revolvers NO. Section 3, Article IV of the Constitution, guarantees the right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
h. 2 ammunition reloading machines whatever nature and for any purpose. It also specifically provides that no Search Warrant shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the Judge or such other responsible
i. Assorted ammunitions for said calibers of firearms officer as may be authorized by law, 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.
j. 10 hand grenades

After propounding several questions to SPO3 Bacolod, Judge Asuncion issued the contested It is at once evident that the foregoing Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal
search warrant. properties vaguely described and not particularized. It is an all- embracing description which
includes everything conceivable regarding the Communist Party of the Philippines and the
National Democratic Front. It does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are;
what the manuals not otherwise available to the public contain to make them subversive or to
Issue: enable them to be used for the crime of rebellion. There is absent a definite guideline to the
searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the law
Whether or not the search warrant issued by Judge Asuncion complied with the requisites for a discretion regarding what articles they should seize as, in fact, taken also were a portable
valid issuance. typewriter and 2 wooden boxes.

It is thus in the nature of a general warrant and infringes on the constitutional mandate
Held: requiring particular description of the things to be seized. In the recent rulings of this
Court, search warrants of similar description were considered null and void for being
too general.
Sections 3 & 4 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provide in detail the requisites for the valid
issuance of search warrants. The requisites 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.

In the present case, the search warrant is INVALID because (1) the trial court failed to examine
personally the complainant and the other deponents; (2) SPO3 Bacolod had no personal
knowledge that the petitioners were not licensed to possess the subject firearms; and (3) the
place to be searched was not described with particularity.

Chief Inspector Pascua was asked was not asked nor said anything more in his application. He
even failed to affirm it. The trial judge failed to propound questions, let alone probing questions.
Judge Asuncion heavily relied on their affidavits. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his
witnesses are not sufficient. It is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and
exhaustive, not merely routinary or pro-forma. The judge must not simply rehash the contents
of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application.

SPO3 Bacolod appeared during the hearing and was extensively examined by the judge.
However, his testimony showed that he did not have personal knowledge that the petitioners
were not licensed to possess firearms, ammunitions or explosives in violation of PD 1866.

Lastly, the search warrant failed to describe particularly the place to be searched. It merely
authorized the search of the aforementioned premises. The warrant thus gives the police
officers unbridled and thus illegal authority to search all the structures found inside the PICOP
compound. The particularization of the description of the place to be searched may properly be
done only by the judge, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot be left to the discretion of the
police officers conducting the search.

Since the evidences are illegally obtained, they are deemed inadmissible in Court.

The petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED, & the Search Warrant declared NULL &
VOID.

Nolasco vs. Cruz Pano Case Digest

Nolasco vs. Cruz Pano, 132 SCRA 152 (1985)

FACTS: Milagros Aguilar-Roque was arrested together with Cynthia Nolasco by the