Case Digest Prudente vs Dayrit

NEMESIO PRUDENTE vs Hon Judge ABELARDO M. DAYRIT

G.R. No. 82870 December 14, 1989

LawPhil’s Full Text link: 

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/dec1989/gr_82870_1989.html

FACTS:

The Chief of the Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Manila, Judge Abelardo Dayrit, for the issuance of Search Warrant for violation of PD No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearm, etc). In the deposition of witness (P/Lt. Florencio C. Angeles), it was made mentioned of “result of our continuous surveillance conducted for several days. We gathered information from verified sources that the holders of said firearms and explosives as well as ammunitions aren’t licensed to possess said firearms and ammunition. Further, the premises is a school and the holders of these firearms are not student who were not supposed to possess firearms, explosives and ammunitions.

Person to be searched in Nemesio Prudente at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta. Mesa, Sampaloc, Manila, has in his control or possession firearms, explosives hand grenades and ammunitions which are illegally possesses at the office of Department of Military Science and Tactics and at the office of the President.

Petitioner moved to quash the Search Warrant. He claimed that:

1.     Petitioners, had no personal knowledge of the facts

2.     The examination of the said witness was not in form of searching questions and answers

3.     Search warrant was a general warrant

4.     Violation of Circular No. 19 of the Supreme Court in that the complainant failed to allege under oath that the issuance of the search warrant on a Saturday, urgent.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the search and seizure was valid?

HELD:

Search Warrant annulled and set aside.

RATIONALE:

Valid search warrant to issue, there must be probable cause, which is to be determined personally by the Judge, after examination under oath and affirmation of the complainant, and that witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized. The probable cause must be in connection with one specific offense and the Judge must, before issuing Search Warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, In writing and under oath, the complainant and any witnesses he may produce, on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted.

“Probable Cause” for a valid search warrant, has been 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 which the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

-          This probable case must be shown to be personal knowledge and of the complainant and witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay.

PARTICULARITY

For violation of PD 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.) while the said decree punishes several offenses, the alleged violation in this case was, qualified by the phrase illegal possession of firearms etc. - - Reformed to ammunitions and explosives. In other words, the search warrant was issued for the specific offense of illegal possession of firearms and explosives. Hence, the failure of the Search Warrant to mention the particular provision of PD1-866 that was violated is not of such gravity as to call for the invalidation of this case.