Case Digest of Mata vs Bayona

SORIANO MATA vs HON. JOSEPHINE K. BAYONA

FACTS:

The contention is that the search warrant issued by respondent Judge was based merely on application for Search Warrant and a joint affidavit of private respondents which were wrongfully allegedly subscribed, and sworn to before the Clerk of Court. Furthermore, there was allegedly a failure on the part of the respondent Judge to attach the necessary papers pertinently under PD 810, as amended by PD1306, the information against him alleging that Soriano Mata offered, took, and arrangedvbets on the Jai Alai game by “selling illegal tickets knows as Masiao tickets without any authority from the Philippine Jai Alai and Corporation or from the government authorities concerned.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Search Warrant is valid?

HELD:

No. The Search Warrant is declared as illegal.

RATIONALE:

Deposition, sometimes used in a broad sense to describe any written statement verified by oath; but in its more technical and appropriate sense the meaning of the word is limited to written testimony of a witness given in the course of a judicial proceeding in advance of the trial or hearing upon oral examination.  

Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and to attach them to the record. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to property determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving if it will be found later his declarations are false.

BACHE & CO (PHIL) and FREDERICK E. SSEGGERMAN vs HON. JUDGE VIVENCIO M. RUIZ

BACHE & CO (PHIL) and FREDERICK E. SSEGGERMAN vs HON. JUDGE VIVENCIO M. RUIZ

GR No. L-32409

FACTS:

Respondent Misael P. Vera, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, wrote a letter addressed to respondent Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz requesting the issuance of Search Warrant for violation of Section 46 of National Internal Revenue Code and authorizing Revenue examiner Rodolfo de Leon, to make and file the application for Search Warrant which was attached to the letter. At that time Judge was hearing a certain case; so, by means of a note he instructed the Deputy Clerk of Court to take the depositions of respondents de Leon and Logronio. The stenographer, upon request of respondent Judge, read to him her stenographic notes; and thereafter, respondent Judge asked responded Logronio to take the oath and warned him that if his deposition was found to be false and without legal basis, he could be charged for perjury.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz conducted a personal examination?

HELD:

No. The petition for Certiorari, prohibition and Mandamus are granted. Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 issued by respondent Judge is declared null and void.

RATIONALE:

Personal examination by the Judge of the complainant and the witnesses is necessary to enable him to determine the existence or non-existence of a probable cause, the determination of whether or not a probable cause exists calls for the exercise of judgment after a judicial appraisal of facts and should not be allowed to be delegated in the absence of any rule to the contrary.  

In this case at bar, no personal examination at all was conducted by respondent Judge of the complainant and his witnesses.

The participation of respondent Judge in the proceedings which led to the issuance of Search Warrant 2-M-70 was thus limited to listening to the stenographer’s readings of her notes to a few words of warning against the commission of perjury, and to administering the oath to the complainant and his witness. This cannot be considered a personal examination. If there was an examination at all of the complainant and his witness, it was one conducted by the Deputy Clerk of Court

Section 4 (Examination of the Applicant):

The Judge or Justice of the peace must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine on oath or affirmation the complaint and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing, and attached them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him.

PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES vs JUDGE MAXIMO ASUNCION

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

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.