SUBJECT: TOPIC: Date Made: Digest Maker:

Crim 2 Search warrants January 27, 2016 eamtrinidad

maliciously obtained
and abuse in the
service of those
illegally obtained

CASE NAME: Burgos vs. Chief of Staff (JOSE BURGOS, SR., JOSE BURGOS, JR., BAYANI SORIANO and
J. BURGOS MEDIA SERVICES, INC., vs. THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE
CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY COMMAND,
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, ET AL.)
PONENTE: Escolin, J. Case Date: December 26, 1984
Case Summary:
 Petitioners assail the validity of two search warrants filed against them for the premises
of “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers in Quezon City as well as the
seizure of printing equipment, documents, motor vehicles, documents, books, etc used
in the newspaper publication. The newspapers and items were alleged to have been
used in subversive activities.
 The Court held that the two search warrants were null and void. Probable cause for a
search 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
the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be
searched. The Court ruled that the affidavits submitted for the application of the
warrant did not satisfy the requirement of probable cause, the statements of the
witnesses having been mere generalizations.
Rule of Law:
Section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution: ... and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other
responsible officer as may be authorized by law, 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.

Art. 129, RPC: Search warrants maliciously obtained, and abuse in the service of those legally
obtained. In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any
other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public
officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally
procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the
same.

Detailed Facts:
 Judge Cruz-Pano issued search warrants for the offices of “Metropolitan Mail” and
“We Forum,” during which printing equipment, motor vehicles, documents, books, etc
possessed by Burgos Jr., the publisher-editor, because these were alleged to be used
in subversive activities.
 Respondents said that the case should be dismissed because petitioners should have
sought the quashal of the warrant from Cruz-Pano itself. The SC said that yes there was
BLOCK D 2019 1
 a procedural flaw but they still take cognizance of the case because of the urgency
of the constitutional issues as well as how “We Forum” garnered public interest
because it was shown on Channel 7.
 Respondents also said that it should be dismissed on the ground of laches
(“negligence for a long amount of time, doing something that could have been done
earlier”) because petitioners only filed the case 6 months after the event. Dec 1982-
June1983. Petitioners said this was because they exhausted other remedies, i.e. writing
a letter to Pres Marcos. When nothing turned up they went to Court. SC said ok

Issue:
(S) W/N the search warrants could be deemed invalid when it only specified one address
but searched two places - NO
(S) W/N the affidavits of witnesses Gutierrez and Tango (Metrocom Intelligence and Security
Group who did surveillance) provided sufficient basis for probable cause? – NO
Holding:
1. NO.
2. NO. Not sufficient basis because too general. The application and/or its supporting
affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive
material he has published or is intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice.
3. Abadilla’s statement: "is in possession or has in his control printing equipment and other
paraphernalia, news publications and other documents which were used and are all
continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion
punishable under Presidential Decree 885, as amended ..."
4. Gutierrez and Tango’s affidavits: "that the evidence gathered and collated by our unit
clearly shows that the premises above- mentioned and the articles and things above-
described were used and are continuously being used for subversive activities in
conspiracy with, and to promote the objective of, illegal organizations such as the
Light-a-Fire Movement, Movement for Free Philippines, and April 6 Movement."

VOID BECAUSE WARRANTS TOO GENERAL. 1] All printing equipment, paraphernalia, paper,
ink, photo (equipment, typewriters, cabinets, tables, communications/recording equipment,
tape recorders, dictaphone and the like used and/or connected in the printing of the "WE
FORUM" newspaper and any and all documents communication, letters and facsimile of
prints related to the "WE FORUM" newspaper.

2] Subversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, and other publication to promote the
objectives and piurposes of the subversive organization known as Movement for Free
Philippines, Light-a-Fire Movement and April 6 Movement; and,

3] Motor vehicles used in the distribution/circulation of the "WE FORUM" and other subversive
materials and propaganda, more particularly,

1] Toyota-Corolla, colored yellow with Plate No. NKA 892;

2] DATSUN pick-up colored white with Plate No. NKV 969

BLOCK D 2019 2
 3] A delivery truck with Plate No. NBS 524;

4] TOYOTA-TAMARAW, colored white with Plate No. PBP 665; and,

5] TOYOTA Hi-Lux, pick-up truck with Plate No. NGV 427 with marking "Bagong
Silang."

5. Jurisprudence tells of the prohibition on the issuance of general warrants. (Stanford vs.
State of Texas). The description and enumeration in the warrant of the items to be
searched and seized did not indicate with specification the subversive nature of the
said items.
Ruling:
 Search warrants declared null and void.
 Prayer for writ of mandatory injuction GRANTED, all articles seized must be returned to
petitioners

BLOCK D 2019 3