Burgos vs.
Chief of Staff
G.R. No. L-64261
December 26, 1984
Facts:
On 7 December 1982, Judge Ernani Cruz-Paño, Executive Judge of the then CFI Rizal [Quezon City], issued 2 search
warrants where the premises at 19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City, and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue,
Quezon City, business addresses of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers, respectively, were
searched, and office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the
printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other
written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the “We Forum”
newspaper, were seized. A petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory and
prohibitory injunction was filed after 6 months following the raid to question the validity of said search warrants, and
to enjoin the Judge Advocate General of the AFP, the city fiscal of Quezon City, et.al. from using the articles seized as
evidence in Criminal Case Q-022782 of the RTC Quezon City (People v. Burgos).
Issue:
Whether allegations of possession and printing of subversive materials may be the basis of the issuance of search
warrants.
Held:
Section 3 provides that 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. 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. In mandating that “no warrant shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce”; the Constitution requires no less than personal knowledge by the
complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified. Herein, a
statement in the effect that Burgos “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 PD 885, as amended” is a mere conclusion of law and does
not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Bereft of such particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of
probable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant. Further, when the search
warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive
materials, 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.
People v Sy Juco
G.R. No. 41957
28 Aug 1937
FACTS:
An agent and representative of the Bureau of Internal Revenue alleged that fraudulent books, letters and papers or
records were being kept in the building occupied by the defendant. After the complainant made his affidavit, the judge
issued the questioned warrant commanding the peace officers to search said building. Among the items seized was an
art metal filing cabinet claimed by petitioner-appellant to be his and to contain some letters, documents and papers
belonging to his clients.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the search and seizure were valid.
RULING:
NO. The affidavit did not state that the books, documents or records referred to therein are being used or are intended
to be used in the commission of fraud against the Government. It assumes that the entire building is occupied by the
defendant against whom the warrant was exclusively issued when the only ground upon which such assumption is
based on is a mere hearsay and when in fact part thereof was occupied by the appellant. The search warrant did not
ask that the things belonging to the appellant and to others also be searched. The warrant has gone beyond what had
been applied for, and the agents who executed it performed acts not authorized by the warrant. The search warrant
was unreasonable, it being evident that its purpose was solely to fish for evidence or search for it by exploration.
Search warrants have not been designed for such purpose.
Appealed judgment is REVERSED and it is ordered that the art metal filing cabinet seized by the internal revenue agents
be IMMEDIATELY RETURNED UNOPENED.
SILVA VS. PRESIDING JUDGE
203 SCRA 140
G.R. No. 81756
21 Oct 1991
Facts:
Sgt. Villamor, chief of the PC Narcom Detachment in Dumaguete City filed an "application for search warrant" and
"Deposition of witness" against petitioner Nicomedes Silva and Martin Silva. Judge Nickarter Ontal, then the presiding
judge of RTC of Dumaguete issued Search Warrant No.1 pursuant to the said applications for violation of RA 6425
Dangerous Drugs ACT of 1972. Such warrant states that there is a probable cause to believe that Mr. Tama Silva has
the possession and control of marijuana dried leaves, cigarette and joint. The warrant authorizes Sgt. Villamor to make
an immediate search at any time of the room of Mr. Tama Silva at the residence of his father Comedes Silva and to
open aparadors, lockers, cabinets, cartons and containers to look for said illegal drugs. In the course of the search, the
officers seized money belonging to Antonieta Silva in the amount of P1,231.40. Petitioner filed a motion to quash
Search Warrant No.1 on the ground that 1) it was issued on the sole basis of mimeographed 2) the judge failed to
personally examine the complainant and witness by searching questions and answers.
Issue:
Whether or Not Search Warrant No.1 is invalid. WON the officers abused their authority in seizing the money of
Antonieta Silva.
Held:
Search Warrant No. 1 is invalid due to the failure of the judge to examine the witness in the form of searching questions
and answers. The questions asked were leading as they are answerable by mere yes or no. Such questions are not
sufficiently searching to establish probable cause. The questions were already mimeographed and all the witness had
to do was fill in their answers on the blanks provided. Judge Ontal is guilty of grave abuse of discretion when he
rejected the motion of Antonieta Silva seeking the return of her money.
The officers who implemented the search warrant clearly abused their authority when they seized the money of
Antonieta Silva. The warrant did not indicate the seizure of money but only for marijuana leaves, cigarettes..etc. Search
Warrant No. 1 is declared null and void.
*** Sec 4 Rule 126 Rules of Court
Examination of the complainant, record -the judge before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of
searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath the complainant and any witness he may produce the
facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together with their affidavits.
Soliven v. Makasiar
G.R. No. 82585
November 14, 1988
FACTS:
The case at bar is a petition raised by one of the petitioners, Beltran, who wants to call for an interpretation of the
constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest. The petitioner assailed that his constitutional right was
violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant
and the witnesses, if any, to determine probable cause. Beltran's interpretation of the words "determined personally"
convinced him that the judge is solely responsible to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his
determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when
the warrant of arrest was issued.
HELD:
No. The Court did not find any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
respondent judge.
Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge 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.
What the Constitution requires is that the issuing judge must satisfy himself first with the criteria in finding probable
cause. And to satisfy himself doesn't mean to he is required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.
The Constitution mandates that he shall:
(1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of
probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or(2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable
cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him
in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
Wherefore, the petition is dismissed.
PEOPLE VS. MUSA
217 SCRA 597
G.,R. NO. 96177
27 JAN 1993
Facts:
A civilian informer gave the information that Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in Suterville, Zamboanga
City. Sgt. Ani was ordered by NARCOM leader T/Sgt. Belarga, to conduct a surveillance and test buy on Musa. The
civilian informer guided Ani to Musa’s house and gave the description of Musa. Ani was able to buy one newspaper-
wrapped dried marijuana for P10.00.
The next day, a buy-bust was planned. Ani was to raise his right hand if he successfully buys marijuana from Musa. As
Ani proceeded to the house, the NARCOM team positioned themselves about 90 to 100 meters away. From his
position, Belarga could see what was going on. Musa came out of the house and asked Ani what he wanted. Ani said
he wanted more marijuana and gave Musa the P20.00 marked money. Musa went into the house and came back,
giving Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried marijuana. Ani opened and inspected it. He raised his right hand
as a signal to the other NARCOM agents, and the latter moved in and arrested Musa inside the house. Belarga frisked
Musa in the living room but did not find the marked money (gave it to his wife who slipped away). T/Sgt. Belarga and
Sgt. Lego went to the kitchen and found a ‘cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the corner of the kitchen.’
They asked Musa about its contents but failed to get a response. So they opened it and found dried marijuana leaves
inside. Musa was then placed under arrest.
Issue:
Whether or Not the seizure of the plastic bag and the marijuana inside it is unreasonable, hence, inadmissible as
evidence.
Held:
Yes. It constituted unreasonable search and seizure thus it may not be admitted as evidence. The warrantless search
and seizure, as an incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include
the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Objects in the ‘plain view’ of an officer who has the right
to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The ‘plain view’
doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless
inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. It will not justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating
nature of the object is not apparent from the ‘plain view’ of the object.
In the case at bar, the plastic bag was not in the ‘plain view’ of the police. They arrested the accused in the living room
and moved into the kitchen in search for other evidences where they found the plastic bag. Furthermore, the
marijuana inside the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from the ‘plain view’ of said object.
Therefore, the ‘plain view’ does not apply. The plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be presented in evidence
pursuant to Article III Section 3 (2) of the Constitution.
