Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 71410 November 25, 1986
JOSEFNO S. RO!N, petitioner,
vs.
T"E "ONOR!#$E ROMU$O T. GON%!$ES, PRES&NG JU&GE, REGON!$
TR!$ COURT OF M!RN&U'UE, #R!NC" ((()* T"E PRO)NC!$ FSC!$
OF M!RN&U'UE* T"E PRO)NC!$ COMM!N&ER, PC+NP M!RN&U'UE,
respondents.

CRU%, J:
Once again we are ased to annul a search warrant on the ground that it violates the
Constitution. As we can do no less if we are to be true to the !andate of the
funda!ental law, we do annul.
One of the !ost precious rights of the citi"en in a free societ# is the right to be left
alone in the privac# of his own house. $hat right has ancient roots, dating bac through
the !ists of histor# to the !ight# English ings in their fortresses of power. Even then,
the lowl# sub%ect had his own castle where he was !onarch of all he surve#ed. $his
was his hu!ble cottage fro! which he could bar his sovereign lord and all the forces of
the Crown.
$hat right has endured through the ages albeit onl# in a few libertarian regi!es. $heir
nu!ber, regrettabl#, continues to dwindle against the onslaughts of authoritarianis!.
&e are a!ong the fortunate few, able again to en%o# this right after the ordeal of the
past despotis!. &e !ust cherish and protect it all the !ore now because it is lie a
prodigal son returning.
$hat right is guaranteed in the following provisions of Article '( of the )*+,
Constitution-
.EC. ,. $he right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
sei"ures of whatever nature and for an# purpose shall not be
violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
e/cept upon probable cause to be deter!ined b# the %udge, or such
other responsible officer as !a# be authori"ed b# law, after
e/a!ination under oath or affir!ation of the co!plainant and the
witnesses he !a# produce, and particularl# describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be sei"ed.
.EC. 0. 1)2 $he privac# of co!!unication and cor3 respondence
shag be inviolable e/cept upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safet# and order re4uire otherwise.
152 An# evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section
shall be inad!issible for an# purpose in an# proceeding.
'nvoing these provisions, the petitioner clai!s he was the victi! of an illegal search
and sei"ure conducted b# the !ilitar# authorities. $he articles sei"ed fro! hi! are
sought to be used as evidence in his prosecution for illegal possession of firear!s. 6e
ass that their ad!ission be te!poraril# restrained 1which we have2
1
and thereafter
per!anentl# en%oined.
$he challenged search warrant was issued b# the respondent %udge on Ma# )7, )*80.
2
$he petitioner9s house was searched two da#s later but none of the articles listed in the
warrant was discovered.
,
6owever, the officers conducting the search found in the
pre!ises one Colt Magnu! revolver and eighteen live bullets which the# confiscated.
$he# are now the bases of the charge against the petitioner.
4
$o be valid, a search warrant !ust be supported b# probable cause to be deter!ined
b# the %udge or so!e other authori"ed officer after e/a!ining the co!plainant and the
witnesses he !a# produce. No less i!portant, there !ust be a specific description of
the place to be searched and the things to be sei"ed, to prevent arbitrar# and
indiscri!inate use of the warrant.
5
Probable cause was described b# :ustice Escolin in Burgos v. Chief of Staff
6
as
referring to ;such facts and circu!stances which would lead a reasonabl# discreet and
prudent !an to believe that an offense has been co!!itted and that the ob%ects
sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.; As held
in a long line of decisions, the probable cause !ust refer to onl# one specific offense.
7
$he inclusion of the re4uire!ent for the ;e/a!ination under oath or affir!ation of the
co!plainant and the witnesses he !a# produce; was a refine!ent proposed b#
<elegate (icente :. =rancisco in the)*,0 Constitutional Convention. 6is purpose was
the strengthening of the guarant# against unreasonable searches and sei"ures.
Although the condition did not appear in the corresponding provision of the federa
Constitution of the >nited .tates which served as our !odel it was then alread#
e!bodied in the Code of Cri!inal Procedure. Nevertheless, <elegate :ose P. ?aurel,
Chair!an of the Co!!ittee on the Bill of Rights of that bod#, readil# accepted the
proposal and it was thereafter, following a brief debate, approved b# the Convention.
8
'!ple!enting this re4uire!ent, the Rules of Court provided in what was then Rule )5@-
1
.EC. 0. Examination of the applicant. A $he !unicipal or cit# %udge
!ust, before issuing the warrant, personall# e/a!ine on oath or
affir!ation the co!plainant and an# witnesses he !a# produce and
tae their depositions in writing, and attach the! to the record, in
addition to an# affidavits presented to hi!.
$he petitioner clai!s that no depositions were taen b# the respondent %udge in
accordance with the above rule, but this is not entirel# true. As a !atter of fact,
depositions were taen of the co!plainant9s two witnesses in addition to the affidavit
e/ecuted b# the!.
9
't is correct to sa#, however, that the co!plainant hi!self was not
sub%ected to a si!ilar interrogation.
Co!!enting on this !atter, the respondent %udge declared-
$he truth is that when PC Capt. Mauro P. Buinosa personall# filed
his application for a search warrant on Ma# )7, )*80, he appeared
before !e in the co!pan# of his two 152 witnesses, Es!ael Morada
and :esus $ohilida, both of who! liewise presented to !e their
respective affidavits taen b# Pat. :osue (. ?ining, a police
investigator assigned to the PC3'NP co!!and at Ca!p Col. Ma/i!o
Abad. As the application was not #et subscribed and sworn to, '
proceeded to e/a!ine Captain Buillosa on the contents thereof to
ascertain, a!ong others, if he new and understood the sa!e.
Afterwards, he subscribed and swore to the sa!e before !e.
10
B# his own account, an he did was 4uestion Captain Buillosa on the contents of his
affidavit onl# ;to ascertain, a!ong others, if he new and understood the sa!e,; and
onl# because ;the application was not #et subscribed and swo! to.; $he suggestion is
that he would not have ased an# 4uestions at all if the affidavit had alread# been
co!pleted when it was sub!itted to hi!. 'n an# case, he did not as his own searching
4uestions. 6e li!ited hi!self to the contents of the affidavit. 6e did not tae the
applicant9s deposition in writing and attach the! to the record, together with the
affidavit presented to hi!.
As this Court held in Mata v. Bayona-
11
Mere affidavits of the co!plainant and his witnesses are thus not
sufficient. $he e/a!ining :udge has to tae depositions in writing of
the co!plainant and the witnesses he nia# produce and attach the!
to the record. .uch written deposition is necessar# in order that the
:udge !a# be able to properl# deter!ine the e/istence or non3
e/istence of the probable cause, to hold liable for per%ur# the person
giving it if it wifl be found later that his declarations are false.
&e, therefore, hold that the search warrant is tainted with illegalit#
b# the failure of the :udge to confor! with the essential re4uisites of
taing the depositions in writing and attaching the! to the record,
rendering the search warrant invalid.
$he respondent %udge also declared that he ;saw no need to have applicant Buillosa9s
deposition taen considering that he was appl#ing for a search warrant on the basis of
the infor!ation provided b# the aforena!ed witnesses whose depositions as
afore!entioned had alread# been taen b# the undersigned.;
12
'n other words, the applicant was asing for the issuance of the search warrant on the
basis of !ere hearsa# and not of infor!ation personall# nown to hi!, as re4uired b#
settled %urisprudence.;
1,
$he rationale of the re4uire!ent, of course, is to provide a
ground for a prosecution for per%ur# in case the applicant9s declarations are found to be
false. 6is application, standing alone, was insufficient to %ustif# the issuance of the
warrant sought. 't was therefore necessar# for the witnesses the!selves, b# their own
personal infor!ation, to establish the apphcant9s clai!s.
14
Even assu!ing then that it would have sufficed to tae the depositions onl# of the
witnesses and not of the applicant hi!self, there is still the 4uestion of the sufficienc#
of their depositions.
't is a/io!atic that the e/a!ination !ust be probing and e/haustive, not !erel#
routinar# or pro-forma, if the clai!ed probable cause is to be established. $he
e/a!ining !agistrate !ust not si!pl# rehash the contents of the affidavit but !ust
!ae his own in4uir# on the intent and %ustification of the application.
15
A stud# of the depositions taen fro! witnesses Es!ael Morada and :esus $ohilida,
who both clai!ed to be ;intelligence infor!ers,; shows that the# were in the !ain a
!ere restate!ent of their allegations in their affidavits, e/cept that the# were !ade in
the for! of answers to the 4uestions put to the! b# the respondent %udge.
.ignificantl#, the !eaningful re!ar !ade b# $ohilida that the# were suspicious of the
petitioner because he was a follower of the opposition candidate in the forthco!ing
election 1a ;?ecarista;2
16
did not e/cite the respondent %udge9s own suspicions. $his
should have put hi! on guard as to the !otivations of the witnesses and alerted hi! to
possible !isrepresentations fro! the!.
$he respondent %udge al!ost un4uestioningl# received the witnesses9 state!ent that
the# saw eight !en deliver ar!s to the petitioner in his house on Ma# 5, )*80.
17
$his
was supposedl# done overtl#, and $ohilida said he saw ever#thing through an open
window of the house while he was near the gate.
18
6e could even positivel# sa# that
si/ of the weapons were.0C caliber pistols and two were.,8 caliber revolvers.
19
One !a# well wonder wh# it did not occur to the respondent %udge to as how the
witness could be so certain even as to the caliber of the guns, or how far he was fro!
the window, or whether it was on the first floor or a second floor, or wh# his presence
was not noticed at all, or if the acts related were reall# done openl#, in the full view of
the witnesses, considering that these acts were against the law. $hese would have
been %udicious 4uestions but the# were in%udiciousl# o!itted. 'nstead, the declarations
2
of the witnesses were readil# accepted and the search warrant sought was issued
forthwith.
$he above3discussed defects have rendered the search warrant invalid. Nonetheless,
the .olicitor Deneral argues that whatever defect there was, was waived when the
petitioner voluntaril# sub!itted to the search and !anifested his confor!it# in writing.
20
&e do not agree. &hat we see here is pressure e/erted b# the !ilitar# authorities,
who practicall# coerced the petitioner to sign the supposed waiver as a guarant#
against a possible challenge later to the validit# of the search the# were conducting.
Confronted with the ar!ed presence of the !ilitar# and the presu!ptive authorit# of a
%udicial writ, the petitioner had no choice but to sub!it. $his was not, as we held in a
previous case,
21
the !anifestation !erel# of our traditional =ilipino hospitalit# and
respect for authorit#. Diven the repressive at!osphere of the Marcos regi!e, there
was here, as we see it, an inti!idation that the petitioner could not resist.
$he respondents also argue that the Colt Magnu! pistol and the eighteen have bullets
sei"ed fro! the petitioner were illegal per se and therefore could have been taen b#
the !ilitar# authorities even without a warrant. Possession of the said articles, it is
urged, was violative of P.<. )8@@ and considered malum prohibitum. 6ence, the &egal
articles could be taen even without a warrant.
Prohibited articles !a# be sei"ed but onl# as long as the search is valid. 'n this case, it
was not because- )2 there was no valid search warrantE and 52 absent such a warrant,
the right thereto was not validl# waived b# the petitioner. 'n short, the !ilitar# officers
who entered the petitioner9s pre!ises had no right to be there and therefore had no
right either to sei"e the pistol and bullets.
't does not follow that because an offense is malum prohibitum, the sub%ect thereof is
necessaril# illegal per se. Motive is i!!aterial in mala prohibita, but the sub%ects of this
ind of offense !a# not be su!!aril# sei"ed si!pl# because the# are prohibited. A
search warrant is still necessar#. 'f the rule were otherwise, then the !ilitar# authorities
could have %ust entered the pre!ises and looed for the guns reportedl# ept b# the
petitioner without bothering to first secure a search warrant. $he fact that the# did
bother to do so indicates that the# the!selves recogni"ed the necessit# of such a
warrant for the sei"ure of the weapons the petitioner was suspected of possessing.
't is true that there are certain instances when a search !a# be validl# !ade without
warrant and articles !a# be taen validl# as a result of that search. =or e/a!ple, a
warrantless search !a# be !ade incidental to a lawful arrest,
22
as when the person
being arrested is frished for weapons he !a# otherwise be able to use against the
arresting officer. Motor cars !a# be inspected at borders to prevent s!uggling of
aliens and contraband
2,
and even in the interior upon a showing of probable cause.
24

(essels and aircraft are also traditionall# re!oved fro! the operation of the rule
because of their !obilit# and their relative ease in fleeing the state9s %urisdiction.
25
$he
individual !a# nowingl# agree to be searched or waive ob%ections to an illegal search.
26
And it has also been held that prohibited articles !a# be taen without warrant if the#
are open to e#e and hand and the peace officer co!es upon the! inadvertentl#.
27

Clearl#, though, the instant case does not co!e under an# of the accepted e/ceptions.
$he respondents cannot even clai! that the# stu!bled upon the pistol and bullets for
the fact is that these things were deliberatel# sought and were not in plain view when
the# were taen. 6ence, the rule having been violated and no e/ception being
applicable, the conclusion is that the petitioner9s pistol and bullets were confiscated
illegall# and therefore are protected b# the e/clusionar# principle.
Stonehill v. Diokno established this rule which was later e/pressl# affir!ed in the )*+,
Constitution. &hile conceding that there !a# be occasions when the cri!inal !ight be
allowed to go free because ;the constable has blundered,; Chief :ustice Concepcion
observed that the e/clusionar# rule was nonetheless ;the onl# practical !eans of
enforcing the constitutional in%unction; against abuse. $he decision cited :udge
?earned 6and9s %ustification that ;onl# in case the prosecution which itself controls the
sei"ing officials, now that it cannot profit b# their wrong, will the wrong be repressed. ;
$he pistol and bullets cannot, of course, be used as evidence against the petitioner in
the cri!inal action against hi! for illegal possession of firear!s. Pending resolution of
that case, however, the said articles !ust re!ain in custoia legis.
=inall#, it is true that the petitioner should have, before co!ing to this Court, filed a
!otion for the 4uashal of the search warrant b# the respondent %udge in accordance
with the nor!al procedure. But as we said and did in Burgos, ;this procedural flaw
notwithstanding, we tae cogni"ance of this petition in view of the seriousness and
urgenc# of the constitutional issues raised.
28

&6ERE=ORE, .earch &arrant No. )380 issued b# the respondent %udge on Ma# )7,
)*80, is hereb# declared null and void and accordingl# set aside. Our restraining order
of August @,)*8C, is !ade per!anent. No costs.
.O OR<ERE<.
3