Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
10th Judicial Region
Branch 33
Butuan City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CRIM. CASE NO. 24307


Plaintiff,

-versus- FOR: “VIOL. OF SEC. 11,


ART. II R.A. 9165”

SIEGFREDO/WILFREDO
MANTALABA y HERMOSADA
Accused.
x- ---------------------- x

MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT


AND/OR TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

ACCUSED, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most


respectfully moves for the quashal of Search Warrant No. 2018-03 dated
07 September 2018, and in support thereof, respectfully states:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 07 September 2018, PINSP Ralph Anthony M. del Parto


applied for a search warrant before a Municipal Trial Court,
Carmen, Agusan del Norte, in which said application was
granted on the same day and the honorable court issued Search
Warrant No. 2018-03. During its implementation, personnel
from Carmen Municipal Police Station who served the search
warrant allegedly found and confiscated at the premises of the
accused two (2) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance of suspected “shabu”.
Hence, the instant case.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE


IN THE ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANT NO. 2018-
03 DATED 07 SEPTEMBER 2018
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

Search Warrant No. 2018-03 dated 07 September


2018 was issued without probable cause.

2. Sections 4 and 5, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court


provides:

SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant.—A


search warrant shall not issue except upon probable
cause in connection with one specific offense to be
determined personally by the judge 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
which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

SEC. 5. Examination of complainant; record.—The


judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally
examine in the form of searching questions and
answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally
known to them and attach to the record their sworn
statements, together with the affidavits submitted.

3. Probable cause has been defined as such facts and


circumstances which would lead a reasonable 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 to be searched.

4. A search warrant may be issued only if there is probable cause


in connection with a specific offense alleged in the application
based on the personal knowledge of the applicant and his
witnesses. The determination of probable cause is a personal
task of the judge before whom the application for search
warrant is filed, as he has to examine the applicant and his
witnesses in the form of “searching questions and answers” in
writing and under oath (Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils., Inc. vs.
Gomez, et al., G.R. No. 154491, November 14, 2008).

5. In the case of Oebanda, et al., vs. People, the Supreme Court


held that:

“In determining the existence of probable cause in an


application for search warrant, the mandate of the
judge is for him to conduct a full and searching
examination of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce. The searching questions propounded to
the applicant and the witnesses must depend on a
large extent upon the discretion of the judge.
Although there is no hard-and-fast rule as to
how a judge may conduct his examination, it
is axiomatic that the said examination must
be probing and exhaustive and not merely
routinary, general, peripheral or
perfunctory. He must make his own inquiry
on the intent and factual and legal
justifications for a search warrant. The
questions should not merely be repetitious of the
averments stated in the affidavit/depositions of the
applicant and the witnesses (786 Phil 706, 714)”.

6. In the instant case, the honorable presiding judge who issued


the questioned search warrant failed to conduct a probing and
exhaustive inquiry as required under the rules and the
constitution. Perusal of the deposition taken on the witness
SPO1 Engelbert O. Clavero appeared that the questions
propounded by the honorable judge were merely routinary,
general, and perfunctory. The pertinent portions of the said
deposition is herein quoted as follows:

Question : Do you know the premises of Wilfredo


Hermosada Mantalaba?
Answer : Yes sir.

Question :Do you have personal knowledge that in


said premises have illegal drugs locally
known as “shabu” are being kept/being
used or intended to be used without
proper documents?
Answer : Yes, sir.

Question :Do you know who is or who is [sic] the


person or persons who have control on
the above-described properties?
Answer :Yes sir, he is Wilfredo Hermosada
Mantalaba, legal age, male, married,
laborer, Filipino citizen, and a residence
[sic] of Purok-3 Brgy San Agustin,
Carmen, Agusan del Norte.

Question :Why do you know him?


Answer :Because he is one of my informers
sometimes on the year 2016. He gave me
valuable information on the illegal drugs
trade in the municipality of Carmen,
Agusan del Norte including drug
personalities but with a price/reward for
every information he gave. He is also my
eyes and ears on the movements of
CPP/NPA members on the vicinity of
Carmen and in the neighboring
municipalities.

Question :How did you know that the said properties


are kept in his premises which are subject
of the offense?
Answer :We conducted discreet surveillance for
more than a month and it was confirmed
that Wilfredo Hermosada Mantalaba is
keeping illegal drugs locally known as
Shabu.

Question : What else?


Answer :He’s been using his blue bongo/multicab
with plate number 120110 in getting illegal
drugs supply from Butuan City and also in
selling illegal drugs on the municipality of
Carmen, Agusan del Norte using the said
vehicle.

Question : What else?


Answer :I together with confidential informant
positively bought one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance of suspected “shabu”
from the suspect Wilfredo Hermosada
Mantalaba.

Question :What did you do to the suspected shabu


which you bought from Wilfredo
Hermosada Mantalaba?
Answer : I delivered it to the PNP Crime Lab Office
13, Camp Rodriguez, Libertad, Butuan City
for laboratory examination and it yielded a
Positive result to the test for the presence
of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride,
dangerous drugs.

7. Clearly, the interrogation conducted by the honorable judge


failed to meet the standards required by the Constitution and
the Rules of Court. None of the above-quoted questions delved
on how the deponent acquired personal knowledge as to how the
illegal drugs were being kept inside the premises of the accused.
If indeed it was acquired though surveillance, there was no
mention as to how the surveillance was conducted which leads
the deponent to conclude that there were illegal drugs in the
premises of the accused. The honorable judge failed to probe
deeper and examine by searching questions the surveillance
conducted by the members of the PNP Carmen Municipal
Station.

8. As to the allegation that deponent and his confidential


informant positively bought illegal drugs from the accused
during a test-buy conducted on 29 August 2018, the same was
unsubstantiated. There was no explanation as to how the
deponent and his confidential informant managed to buy illegal
drugs from the accused. Nor was there any extensive and
exhaustive probing by the honorable judge to that effect.

9. If it is true that deponent was able to purchase illegal drugs from


the accused, there should have been evidence of the transaction
as the purchased illegal drugs would be photographed,
marked, packaged and sealed before it is submitted to the PNP
crime laboratory in Butuan City as mandated under sections 3.1
and 3.2 of the Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs
Operations and Investigation [PNPM-D-0-2-14 (DO)].

10. With all due respect, the honorable judge did not even bother to
ask for a photograph of the alleged illegal drugs that was bought
from the accused. Neither did the deponent submitted a copy of
the same to the honorable judge. Elementary logic and prudence
would dictate that at the very least, a photograph of the
purchased illegal drugs would be shown to the honorable judge
to prove that the accused was indeed engaged in illegal drug
activity. Worse, there was no showing that the alleged
confidential informant was presented to the honorable judge to
corroborate the statements made by the deponent on the alleged
test-buy operation against the accused.

11. Suffice it to say that the questions propounded by the honorable


judge on the deponent was not searching and probing. It failed
to make an independent assessment of the evidence adduced
and the testimony of the deponent in order to support a finding
of probable cause which warranted the issuance of a search
warrant for violation of R.A. 9165.

12. Consequently, for failure to conduct an exhaustive probing and


searching questions, the findings of the existence of probable
cause by the honorable judge becomes dubious. The facts and
circumstances in the application for search warrant and the
testimony of the witness are inadequate proof to establish that
there exists a probable cause to issue the assailed search
warrant. Thus, a search warrant issued not based on probable
cause is a nullity, its issuance being, in legal contemplation,
arbitrary.

13. In the recent case of People vs. Stanley Maderazo, the Supreme
Court held that:

“As a general rule, the finding of probable cause for the


issuance of a search warrant by a trial judge is
accorded respect by the reviewing courts. However,
when in issuing the search warrant, the issuing judge
failed to comply with the requirements set by the
Constitution and the Rules of Court, the resulting
search warrants must be struck down as it was issued
with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to
in excess or lack of jurisdiction.

Settled is the rule that where entry into the premises to


be searched was gained by virtue of a void search
warrant, prohibited articles seized in the course of the
search are inadmissible against the accused. In ruling
against the admissibility of the items seized, the Court
held that prohibited articles may be seized but only as
long as the search is valid. In this case, it was not
because: (1) there was no valid search warrants; and
(2) absent such a warrant, the right thereto was not
validly waived by Maderazo. In short, the police
officers who entered petitioner’s premises had no right
to search the premises and, therefore, had no right
either to seize the prohibited drugs and articles and
firearms. It is as if they entered Maderazo’s house
without a warrant, making their entry therein illegal,
and the items seized, inadmissible.

Finally, it must be stressed anew that no presumption


of regularity may be invoked in aid of the process when
the officer undertakes to justify an encroachment of
right secured by the Constitution. Considering that the
search and seizure warrant in this case was procured
in violation of the Constitution and the Rules of Court.
All the items seized in Maderazo’s house, being fruits
of the poisonous tree, are inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding (G.R. No. 235348, December 10,
2018).”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully


prayed that Search Warrant No. 2018-03 dated 07 September 2018 be
QUASHED and all objects seized under its purported authority be declared
INADMISSIBLE per Section 3(2) in relation to section 2, Article III, of
the 1987 Constitution.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
Respectfully submitted, June 10, 2019, at Davao City (for Butuan
City), Philippines.

CHRISTIAN D. DERIGAY
Counsel for the Accused
M.C.L.E. Comp. No. IV-0021708
TIN: 428-708-196-000;
Roll No: 60035
IBP No. 048437/07-24-18
PTR No. 1101514C 09/07/18
Door 11, G/F, Plaza de Tavera Bldg., J. Camus Ext., Brgy 9-A, Davao City

Copy furnished by registered mail:

GAUDENIS FELIX E. PLAZA


Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
Hall of Justice, Libertad, Butuan City

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE CLERK OF COURT


Regional Trial Court, Branch 33
Hall of Justice, Libertad, Butuan City

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing Motion for the consideration and approval
of the Honorable Court on July 22, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon as
counsel and matter may be heard.

Christian D. Derigay

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to section 13, Rule 14, of the Rules of Court)

Service of this Motion to the honorable prosecutor was made thru


registered mail due to constraints in distance and for lack of personnel
thereby making personal service impractical.

Christian D. Derigay

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen