GR 248395; (January, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 248395 , January 29, 2020
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, v. Roberto Rey E. Gabiosa, Respondent.
FACTS
Police Superintendent Leo Tayabas Ajero applied for a search warrant against Roberto Rey E. Gabiosa before Executive Judge Arvin Sadiri B. Balagot. The application was supported by the affidavit of Police Officer 1 Rodolfo M. Geverola, who stated that based on information from an informant, they conducted a test buy on January 18, 2017, where Gabiosa sold him a sachet of suspected shabu for PHP 1,000.00, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Judge Balagot conducted a preliminary examination of PO1 Geverola under oath, asking questions about the test buy, the description of Gabiosa’s house, and the basis for believing Gabiosa still possessed illegal drugs. Based on this, Judge Balagot issued Search Warrant No. 149-2017. Gabiosa filed a Motion to Quash the search warrant, arguing its issuance was constitutionally infirm. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion, finding the judge’s examination sufficient. Gabiosa filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, declaring the search warrant null and void, reasoning that the Constitution requires the judge to personally examine both the complainant and the witness, and that the questions propounded were superficial and perfunctory. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the Petition for Certiorari and declaring Search Warrant No. 149-2017 null and void.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the assailed CA Decision and Resolution, and REINSTATED the RTC Resolution denying the Motion to Quash. The Court ruled that the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in upholding the validity of the search warrant.
The Court held that the constitutional requirement under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution for the judge to examine “the complainant and the witnesses he may produce” does not mandate the examination of both the applicant and the witness in every case. Citing the rule of statutory construction noscitur a sociis and historical jurisprudence (U.S. v. Ocampo), the Court interpreted the phrase to mean the judge must examine the complainant or applicant and such witnesses as the latter may produce, but the examination of one witness with personal knowledge of the facts may suffice to establish probable cause. The examination of PO1 Geverola, the witness who conducted the test buy, was therefore sufficient.
Furthermore, the Court found that Judge Balagot’s examination of PO1 Geverola was not superficial or perfunctory. The questions, taken as a whole, were probing and sufficient to determine the existence of probable cause. The judge inquired into the specifics of the test buy, how the witness obtained his knowledge, the description of the place to be searched, and the basis for believing the items were still there. Probable cause for a search warrant merely requires probability, not certainty, and the judge’s examination met this standard. Consequently, the search warrant was validly issued.