Name: LINGANAY, NOEL JUN L.

Subject: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

Course: JD-WT I Professor: Atty. MARK LAWRENCE C. BADAYOS
Group: 5, neon BLUE Section: EH 309

CONTINUATION OF REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT

Art. III, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause 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 persons or things to be seized.

Requisites of a Valid Warrant

i. The warrant must be based upon probable cause;

ii. The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge;
iii. The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and;
iv. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.

i. Probable Cause

Set of facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that the offense charged in the Information, or any offense included therein, has been
committed by the person sought to be arrested. (People v. Gabo)

People v. Gabo Case Digest

FACTS:
On May 14, 2001, around 12:15 a.m., a fire broke out inside the plant of Sanyoware
Plastic Products Manufacturing Corporation (Sanyoware). Investigations were conducted by the
Philippine 3rd Regional Criminal Investigation and Detention Group (CIDG) and the Inter Agency
Anti-Arson Task Force (IATF) of the Department of the Interior and Local Government and the
respondent were accused of destructive arson. In support of the accusation, petitioner
submitted the Sworn Statements of Richard Madrideo, Jaime Kalaw, Raymund Dy, Chit Chua,
Jennifer Chua Reyes, Shanda Amistad, SPO1 Valeriano Dizon and Inspector Allan N. Barredo,
which contains the following:

* That the respondent was threatened to write a sworn statement against his will
wherein if anyone ask about the fire he would say that it did not break out simultaneously
and its cause was a defective wiring.
* That a week before the fire occurred, almost 300 unserviceable molds were
transferred to the burned Sanyoware warehouse. A day before the fire, expensive finished
products were loaded in delivery trucks and saw the respondent took a rectangular shape
object from his vehicle.
* That saleable products from the burned warehouse were transferred to the Sanyo City
Warehouse, while unusable components from the Sanyo City warehouse were
transferred to the burned warehouse which was ordered to finish on May 12, 2001.
*That an employee at the Accounting Department claimed that the company was
indebted to a number of banks and corporation.

Respondent submitted a Counter-Affidavit to refute the allegations, it states that the

ocular inspection was not conducted and the Inter Agency Anti-Arson Task Force (IATF) did not
even conducted any investigation, except in essence to ask the witnesses of complainant to
identify under oath their sworn statements executed before the complainant and to ask
respondents to submit their sworn statements and later to identify the same under oath.
Respondents filed a Motion to Conduct Hearing to Determine Probable Cause and to Hold in
Abeyance the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest Pending Determination of Probable Cause.

Due to lack of probable cause, the RTC Dismissed the case which the Court of Appeals
affirmed. And it is now a petition for certiorari to set aside the previous resolution. Petitioner
alleged that the respondent court lacked or exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse
of discretion in its resolution when it applies the equipoise rule in dismissing the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent court lacked or exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave
abuse of discretion.
RULING:

The basis of RTC in dismissing the case is that, the sworn statements submitted by the
petitioner and the sworn statements submitted by the respondents contained contradictory
positions.

This court finds that the RTC had in fact complied with the requirement under the rules
of personally evaluating the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence and that
the assailed Order was arrived at after due consideration of the merits thereto. Based on the
statement of Marideo (one of the witnesses), it appears that the fire broke out in 2 places
which, presupposes or implies that some sort of incendiary or inflammable substances ignited
to start the fire. However, on the investigation conducted by Bocaue Fire Station, it appears to
have ruled out the use of incendiary or inflammable substances and was found negative of any
flammable substances. This physical evidence puts the truth of the latter in grave doubt. Also
Investigation conducted point to the faulty wiring as the cause of origin.

Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a
hundred witnesses.

The conclusions of the RTC which led to the dismissal of the information against
respondents cannot, in any sense, be characterized as outrageously wrong or manifestly
mistaken, or whimsically or capriciously arrived at. The worst that may perhaps be said of it is
that it is fairly debatable, and may even be possibly erroneous. But they cannot be declared to
have been made with grave abuse of discretion. 

The judge is required to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its
supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly
fails to establish probable cause. To this Court's mind, the RTC had complied with its duty of
personally evaluating the supporting evidence of the prosecution before arriving at its decision
of dismissing the case against respondents.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. 

xii. In the case of People v. Gabo, the criminal charge involved is arson under Article 320 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Samson Cua Ting, the External Vice President of the Sanyoware
Plastic Products Manufacturing Corporation (Sanyoware); Wilson Cua Ting, Plant manager;
Edward Ngo Yao, President of New Marketing Corporation; Willy So Tan, Vice President for
Operations; Carol Fernan Ortega, Assistant to the External Vice-President were the one
complained of committing the same.

A case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction was also filed
against Hon. Basilio R. Gabo, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos,
Bulacan, Branch II.

xiii. In said case, State Prosecutor Carlos C. Pormento in his resolution that there was
probable cause to indict Wilson Ting, Edward Yao, Willy So Tan and Carol Ortega of the
abovementioned crime. This is because, the State Prosecutor was able to establish probable
cause of the crime charged, to wit: conspiring and confederating and mutually helping one
another, acting in common accord, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously,
destroy the warehouses known as Sanyoware Plastic Products Manufacturing Plant and New
Unitedware Marketing Corporation, including the stocks of raw materials and finish products,
machineries and various equipments by maliciously burning the same for the purpose of
concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of law, and to conceal bankruptcy to
defraud creditors and to collect from insurance. Thus, corresponding criminal information were
filed at Branch XI, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos Bulacan.

xiv. In this case, the corresponding criminal information were raffled at Branch XI, Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos Bulacan.

xv. In said case, the first few motions filed by the Appellee before the Regional Trial Court
were Motion to Conduct Hearing to Determine Probable Cause and to Hold in Abeyance the
Issuance of Warrant of Arrest Pending Determination of Probable Cause.

xvi. In said case, the RTC resolved the motion/s filed by the Appellee by issuing an Order
dismissing the case, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“Accordingly, for lack of probable cause, the instant case is DISMISSED as

ordained under Sec. 6, par a of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may
immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable
cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment
order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the
judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was
filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable
 cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5)
days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days
from the filing of the complaint of information.”

The RTC applied the equipoise rule in dismissing the case, because of its observation
that the sworn statements submitted by petitioner and respondents contained contradictory
positions.

xvii. In said case, a Warrant of Arrest was not issued by the RTC.

xviii. In said case, it was proper for the RTC to apply the equipoise rule because of its
observation that the sworn statements submitted by petitioner and respondents
contained contradictory positions.

xix. Upon filing of an information in court, trial court judges must determine the existence or
non-existence of probable cause based on their personal evaluation of the prosecutor's
report and its supporting documents. They may dismiss the case, issue an arrest
warrant, or require the submission of additional evidence. However, they cannot
remand the case for another conduct of preliminary investigation on the ground that
the earlier preliminary investigation was improperly conducted.

17.
In the case of People v. Gayoso, the concept of probable cause for a valid search
warrant is 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 objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched." The probable cause must
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 persons or things to be seized." Probable cause does not mean actual and
positive cause, nor does it import absolute certainty. The determination of the existence of
probable cause is concerned only with the question of whether the affiant has reasonable
wounds to believe that the accused committed or is committing the crime charged.

i. The relevant facts in the said case: Based on the testimonies of SPO3 Victorino de Dios,
SPO3 Rolando G. Salamida, PO2 Rex Isip, SPO4 Josefina Bandoy, P/Insp. Eleazar Barber, Jr.,
PS/Insp. Benjamin Cruto, and the documentary exhibits, the following facts emerged: PI Barber
of the PNP Guiuan Police Station directed SPO3 De Dios to conduct a surveillance on appellant
after receiving several reports that she was peddling prohibited drugs. Three weeks later, SPO3
De Dios confirmed that appellant was indeed engaged in illegal drug activities. PI Barber filed
for and was issued a search warrant. However, prior to implementing the search warrant, PI
Barber decided to conduct a "confirmatory test-buy" designating SPO3 De Dios as poseur-buyer
and giving him P200.00 marked money for the operation.

Appellant denied the charges against her. She claimed that on March 24, 2004,
somebody forcibly kicked the front door of her house and tried to break it open. When she
opened the door, PI Barber pushed her aside and told his companions to move quickly. They
went directly to her room; when PO2 Isip emerged therefrom seconds later, he was holding a
substance that looked like tawas. SPO3 De Dios and SPO3 Salamida went in and out of her
house. She maintained that the search warrant was shown to her only after an hour and that
the sachets of shabu were planted. She argued that the police officers fabricated the charges
against her since her family had a quarrel with a police officer named Rizalina Cuantero
regarding the fence separating their houses.

ii. In said case, the Supreme Court characterize the probable cause for a valid search
warrant is 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 objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched." The probable cause must
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 persons or things to be seized." Probable cause does not mean actual and
positive cause, nor does it import absolute certainty. The determination of the existence of
probable cause is concerned only with the question of whether the affiant has reasonable
wounds to believe that the accused committed or is committing the crime charged.

PERSONAL DETERMINATION BY THE JUDGE

18. Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause 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 persons or things to be seized.

19. Rule 112, Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial
Court. — Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall
personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may
immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause.
If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the
accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted
the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to
section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order
the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue
must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint of
information.

Rule 126, Section 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.

Rule 126, Section 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.

21. Soliven v. Makasiar case:

i. In the case of Soliven v. Makasiar, the Supreme Court explained the “personal
determination” and “personal examination,” to wit:

“The addition of the word "personally" after the word "determined" and the deletion of
the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants to "other responsible officers
as may be authorized by law," has apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the Constitution
now requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his
determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. This is not an accurate
interpretation.

What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing
judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence
of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he
shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest;
or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report
and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.”

ii. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate
the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of
probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof
he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause.

iii. In the said case, the policy consideration is that sound policy dictates this
procedure, otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary examination and
investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed
before their courts.