G.R. No. 235348. December 10, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. STANLEY MADERAZO Y ROMERO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Police Superintendent Jaycees Tolentino applied for search warrants against respondent Stanley Maderazo based on information from barangay officials Loida Roco and Rexcel Rivera. The officials claimed that on March 31, 2015, after Maderazo’s arrest for attempted murder, he admitted to them that he was keeping illegal drugs, paraphernalia, and a firearm inside his rented house. Tolentino alleged verification through casing and surveillance. Executive Judge Tomas Leynes issued Search Warrant Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015 on the same day after examining the witnesses. The warrants were served, leading to the seizure of suspected shabu, drug paraphernalia, a firearm, and other items. Maderazo was subsequently charged.
Maderazo moved to quash the warrants, arguing lack of probable cause. He contended that Tolentino had no personal knowledge, the alleged police surveillance was impossible as he was already in custody, and the witnesses’ sworn statements were based solely on his alleged admission, not their personal perception. He also noted the absence of a transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) from the judge’s examination. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals granted Maderazo’s certiorari petition, nullifying the warrants and declaring the seized items inadmissible.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Judge Leynes committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the search warrants and in denying the motion to quash them.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The issuance of the search warrants was constitutionally infirm. Probable cause for a search warrant requires such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe an offense has been committed and the objects sought are in the place to be searched. The personal examination by the judge of the complainant and witnesses is mandatory to determine probable cause.
Here, the sworn statements of the barangay officials were insufficient to establish probable cause. Their knowledge was not derived from their own personal perception but solely from Maderazo’s alleged admission. Information based merely on hearsay does not satisfy the requirement of personal knowledge. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to substantiate Tolentino’s claim of prior surveillance. Critically, there was no TSN or any adequate written record of the judge’s examination of the applicant and witnesses to prove that the required searching questions and answers were conducted. The mere existence of sworn statements, which were identical in form, does not comply with the constitutional and procedural mandate for a personal examination. Consequently, the search warrants were void for lack of probable cause. All items seized by virtue of these invalid warrants are inadmissible as evidence, being fruits of the poisonous tree.