People vs.

Estrada
People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo Estrada
[G.R. No. 178318, January 15, 2010]

Doctrine:
          In order to charge properly an uncle of a rape-victim for qualified rape, the
circumstance that accused-appellant is a relative of the victims by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree must be alleged in the information.

Facts:
          On November 19, 1997, two similarly-worded Informations were filed against
appellant Edgardo Estrada charging him with two counts of Rape committed as follows:

That on or about the month of July 1997, at Barangay x x x, in the Municipality of

Atimonan, Province of Quezon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, who is the uncle of the offended party, with lewd
design, by means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one AAA, a minor, 12 years of age,
against her will.

On August 16, 2002, the trial court found the accused guilty of qualified rape on
two counts and sentenced him to suffer the supreme penalty of death.

The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification finding the
appellant guilty of simple rape. The Court of Appeals opined that mere allegation in the
Information that the appellant was the victim’s uncle would not suffice to satisfy the
special qualifying circumstance of relationship. It must be categorically stated that
appellant is a relative within the 3rd civil degree by consanguinity or affinity.

Hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not appellant should be held liable for qualified rape.

Held: No. Appellant is guilty only of two counts of simple rape. In the instant case, it
was clearly established by the prosecution that on two occasions in July 1997, the
victim was sexually abused by appellant through force and intimidation, against her will
and without her consent.

          However, as regards the allegation in the Information that appellant is an uncle of
the victim, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the same did not sufficiently satisfy
the requirements of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., it must be succinctly stated
that appellant is a relative within the 3rd civil degree by consanguinity or affinity. It is
immaterial that appellant admitted that the victim is his niece. In the same manner, it is
irrelevant that AAA testified that appellant is her uncle.
          The circumstance that accused-appellant is a relative of the victims by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree must be alleged in the information.
In the case at bar, the allegation that accused-appellant is the uncle of private
complainants was not sufficient to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of
relationship. It was necessary to specifically allege that such relationship was within the
third civil degree. Hence, accused-appellant can only be convicted of simple rape.
 PICOP vs. Asuncion GR 122092 May 19, 1999

Facts:
On January 25, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Napoleon B. Pascua applied for a search
warrant before the Quezon City RTC, stating:
1. The management of PICOP located at PICOP compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig,
Surigao del 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.
2. That the Search Warrant should be issued to enable any agent of the law to take
possession and bring to this Honorable Court the following described properties:
a. 70 M16 Armalite rifles cal. 5.56
b. 10 M16 US rifles
c. 2 AK-47 rifles
d. 2 UZI submachine guns
e. 2 M203 Grenade Launchers cal. 40mm
f.  10 cal. 45 pistols
g. 10 cal. 38 revolvers
h. 2 ammunition reloading machines
i.  Assorted ammunitions for said calibers of firearms
j.  10 hand grenades
After propounding several questions to SPO3 Bacolod, Judge Asuncion issued the
contested search warrant.

Issue:
Whether or not the search warrant issued by Judge Asuncion complied with the
requisites for a valid issuance.

Held:
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.