Case Digest of G.R. No. 122092. May 19, 1999
PAPER INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES vs JUDGE MAXIMO ASUNCION
FACTS:
Police
Chief Inspector Napoleon B. Pascua applied for a search warrant before Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, that the Paper Industries Corporation of the
Philippines located at Bislig, Surigao De Sur is in possession or has in its
control high powered firearms, ammunitions, explosives, which are the subject
of the offense.
ISSUE:
Whether
the Search Warrant is Valid?
HELD:
No,
petition for Certiorari and prohibition is hereby granted and Search Warrant
No. 799 accordingly declared null and void, TRO permanent.
RATIONALE:
There
is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts.
Main Issue: Validity of Search Warrrant (Article
III, Section 2, 1987, 1987 Constitution & Rule 126, Sections 3&4 of
Rules of Court).
Requisites of Valid Search
Warrant 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
5.
The
Warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and things to be seized
a.
Present
case, the Search Warrant is INVALID because
i.
The
Trial Court failed to examine personally the complainant and the other dependents
ii.
SP03
Bacolod had no personal knowledge that petitioners were not licensed to possess
the subject firearms
iii.
The
place to be searched was not described with particularity
Mere
affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses does are thus not sufficient.
The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce and attached them to the record.
Particularity of the Place
to be searched:
The
belief to value privacy of home and person and to afford it constitutional protection
against the long reach of government is no less than to value human dignity,
and that his privacy must not be disturbed except in case of overriding social
need and then only under stringent procedural safeguards.
The aforementioned premises, did not
specify such premises. The warrant identifies only one place and that is Paper
Industries Corporation of the Philippines, located at PICOP compound. However;
it was made of 200 offices / building, 15 plants, 84 staffs houses, airstrip, 3
piers / wharves, and 23 warehouses.
Jurisprudence: People vs CA
What
is material in determining the validity of a search is the place stated in the
warrant itself, not what the applicants had in their thoughts, or had
represented in the proofs they submitted to the Court issuing the warrant.
- It
would concede to police officers the power of choosing the place to be
searched, even if not delineated in the warrant
- The
particularization of the description of the place to be searched may properly
be done by the Judge, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot be left to the
discretion of the police officers conducting the search.
Please see below link to access Supreme Court's Full Text:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/may99/122092.htm
