G.R. No. 153087 ; August 7, 2003
BERNARD R. NALA, Petitioner, vs. JUDGE JESUS M. BARROSO, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, 10th Judicial Region, Malaybalay City, Respondent.

FACTS

On June 25, 2001, PO3 Macrino L. Alcoser applied for a search warrant against “Rumolo Nala alias Long” for alleged illegal possession of firearms. After examining Alcoser and his witness, Ruel Nalagon, respondent Judge issued Search Warrant No. 30-01. The warrant was executed on July 4, 2001, at petitioner Bernard R. Nala’s residence, resulting in the seizure of a .38 revolver, a grenade, and other items not specified in the warrant, such as drug paraphernalia. Criminal cases for illegal possession were subsequently filed.
Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the search warrant, arguing his first name was erroneously stated as “Romulo” and that the seized items were not those listed. The respondent Judge denied the motion, ruling that the warrant sufficiently described petitioner and that the seized items, though unlisted, were related to the offense. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, prompting this petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the search warrant sufficiently described the person to be searched; (2) whether there was probable cause for its issuance; and (3) whether the seized items not listed in the warrant are admissible in evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and declared Search Warrant No. 30-01 null and void. On the first issue, the Court held that the warrant’s description of the person as “Romulo Nala alias Lolong” was insufficient to identify petitioner Bernard R. Nala. A search warrant must particularly describe the person to be searched to prevent mistaken identity, and the aliases provided did not cure the fundamental error in the first name.
On the critical issue of probable cause, the Court found that the respondent Judge failed to conduct the required “probing and exhaustive examination” of the applicant and his witness. The examination was merely routine and pro forma. Crucially, for the offense of illegal possession of firearms, the absence of a license is a negative element that must be established during the ex parte hearing. The applicant presented no evidence to show that petitioner lacked the necessary license, which is indispensable for a finding of probable cause for that specific offense. Consequently, the warrant was issued without the requisite factual basis.
Given the invalidity of the warrant, all items seized during the search, including those not listed, are inadmissible in evidence as “fruits of the poisonous tree.” The Court ordered the return of the seized items to petitioner. The ruling emphasizes the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and the judicial duty to safeguard this right through a stringent determination of probable cause.