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.