G.R. No. 122092 May 19, 1999
Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines, et al. vs. Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion, et al.

FACTS

On January 25, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Napoleon B. Pascua applied for a search warrant before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, presided by Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion. The application alleged that the Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP), represented by its Senior Vice President Ricardo G. Santiago, was in possession of high-powered firearms, ammunition, and explosives in violation of P.D. 1866, concealed within its compound in Bislig, Surigao del Sur. The application was supported by the joint deposition of SPO3 Cicero S. Bacolod and SPO2 Cecilio T. Morito, along with summaries of statements from informants Mario Enad and Felipe Moreno. After examining only SPO3 Bacolod, Judge Asuncion issued Search Warrant No. 799 (95). The warrant was enforced on February 4, 1995, resulting in the seizure of numerous firearms and ammunition from the PICOP compound.
Petitioners filed a motion to quash the search warrant, which was denied by the trial court. They subsequently elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, arguing that the search warrant was issued in violation of constitutional and procedural requirements. The Office of the Solicitor General concurred with the petitioners, while the respondent PNP unit failed to file its required memorandum.

ISSUE

Whether Search Warrant No. 799 (95) was validly issued.

RULING

No, the search warrant was invalid. The Supreme Court granted the petition and declared Search Warrant No. 799 (95) null and void. The Court emphasized the strict requirements for issuing a search warrant to preserve the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The issuing judge must personally examine the complainant and witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers to determine probable cause.
Here, the examination of the lone witness, SPO3 Bacolod, was fatally defective. His testimony revealed that he had no personal knowledge of the facts alleged. He merely relied on the statements of informants Enad and Moreno, who were not presented for examination. Probable cause for a search warrant must be based on the witness’s own personal knowledge, not on hearsay information. Furthermore, the description of the place to be searched in the application was vague, referring only to the “PICOP compound,” a vast area encompassing 180,000 hectares, which failed to particularly describe the specific building or premises. This violated the constitutional mandate that warrants must particularly describe the place to be searched. Consequently, the search warrant was void from the beginning, and all items seized pursuant to it were inadmissible as evidence. The Court ordered the return of the seized items to the petitioners.