Cynthia P. Nolasco vs Hon. Ernani Cruz Pano

Case Digest of G.R. No. L-69803:

CYNTHIA D. NOLASCO, MILA AGUILAR-ROQUE and WILLIE C. TOLENTINO, petitioners,
vs.
HON. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City; HON. ANTONIO P. SANTOS, Presiding Judge, Branch XLII, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City: HON. SERGIO F. APOSTOL, City Fiscal, Quezon City; HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, LT. GEN. FIDEL RAMOS and COL. JESUS ALTUNA, respondents. 

Cynthia P. Nolasco vs Hon. Ernani Cruz Pano

FACTS:

Aquilar-Roque and Nolasco were arrested by a Constabulary Security Group (CSG) at the intersection of Mayon Street, Quezon City On the same day, a searched was conducted. Ct. Col. Virgilio Saldajeno; applied for search warrant from the respondent Hon. Ernani Cruz Pano, after a month of “round the clock” surveillance of the premises as a “suspected underground house of the CPP/NPA”, particularly connected to MV Karagatan / Pena Andrea cases. The searching party seized 428 documents and written materials, and additionally a portable typewriter and 2 wooden boxes. The City Fiscal information for violation of PD No. 33, Illegal Possession of Subversive Documents

Petitioners contend that the Search Warrant is void because it is a general warrant since it does not sufficiently describe with particularly the things subject of the search and seizure and that probable cause had not been properly established for lack of searching questions propounded to the applicant’s witness.

                Disputed Search Warrant:

Documents, papers and other records of the communist party of the Philippines / New People’s Army and or the National Democratic Front, such as Minutes  of the Party Philippines..

ISSUE:

Whether or not the search warrant issued was of general warrant and illegal?

HELD:

The search warrant is of General, thus, it was hereby annulled by set aside.

RATIONALE:

The Search Warrant does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are; what are the manuals not otherwise available to the public certain to make them subversive or to enable them to be used for the crime of rebellion. There is absent a definite guideline to the searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the law discretion regarding what articles they should seize as, in fact, taken also were a portable typewriter.

Mere generalization will not suffice and odes not satisfy the requirements of probable cause upon which a warrant may issue.