G.R. No. 216922 APRIL 18, 2018
JAYLORD DIMAL and ALLAN CASTILLO, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Jaylord Dimal and Allan Castillo were charged with Kidnapping for Ransom and Multiple Murder. The charges stemmed from the disappearance of Lucio Pua, Rosemarie Pua, and Gemma Eugenio after they visited Dimal’s compound to negotiate a palay sale. Following a report by a relative, police conducted a warrantless search of Dimal’s compound on September 7, 2010, but found nothing. Subsequently, co-accused individuals provided statements implicating Dimal. Based on these, Police Inspector Roy Michael S. Malixi applied for a search warrant before the RTC of Ilagan, Isabela, Branch 17, alleging that specific personal belongings of the victims, a large quantity of palay, a bolo, and a firearm were in Dimal’s compound.
The issuing judge examined the applicant and three witnesses. Search Warrant No. 10-11 was issued, leading to the seizure of the listed items. Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to quash the warrant and declare the seized items inadmissible, arguing the warrant was issued without probable cause and the judge failed to conduct a thorough examination. The RTC denied the motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed their subsequent petition for certiorari, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the validity of Search Warrant No. 10-11.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings, upholding the validity of the search warrant. The Court meticulously applied the constitutional and procedural requisites for a valid search warrant. It found that probable cause was sufficiently established. The applicant, P/Insp. Malixi, and his witnesses—Edison Pua (victims’ relative), Shaira Mae Eugenio (victim’s daughter), and Ernesto Villador (Dimal’s employee)—provided specific, firsthand testimonies during the judge’s examination. Their accounts detailed seeing blood-stained clothing, knowing the victims’ belongings were in the compound, and witnessing Dimal in possession of the firearm. This collective testimony provided a reasonable ground to believe that the enumerated seizable items were indeed in the specified location.
The Court rejected petitioners’ claim of insufficient judicial examination. The judge personally examined the applicant and all three witnesses under oath, employing searching questions and answers as required. The witnesses’ knowledge was based on their personal observations, not mere hearsay. The fact that the application was filed in a court outside the territorial jurisdiction where the search was to be executed was justified by the applicant’s stated compelling reasons of security and confidentiality to prevent information leakage, which the issuing judge found acceptable. Consequently, the search warrant was validly issued, and the seized items were admissible in evidence against the petitioners.