GR 81756; (October, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 81756 October 21, 1991
NICOMEDES SILVA @ “COMEDES”, MARLON SILVA @ “TAMA” and ANTONIETA SILVA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, BRANCH XXXIII, DUMAGUETE CITY, respondent.
FACTS
On June 13, 1986, M/Sgt. Ranulfo Villamor, Jr. filed an application for a search warrant against petitioners Nicomedes and Marlon Silva for alleged violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The application was supported by a deposition from two police witnesses. On the same day, Judge Nickarter A. Ontal issued Search Warrant No. 1, authorizing a search of Marlon Silva’s room for marijuana. During its implementation, officers seized P1,231.40 belonging to Antonieta Silva, who was not named in the warrant. Antonieta moved for the return of her money, but the court held its disposition in abeyance. Petitioners later moved to quash the warrant, arguing it was issued based on a mimeographed form and that the judge failed to personally examine the complainant and witnesses through searching questions and answers as required. The motion was denied by the successor judge, prompting this certiorari petition.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Search Warrant No. 1 and in denying the motion to quash it.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring Search Warrant No. 1 null and void. The constitutional and statutory mandate under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and Sections 3 and 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court requires a judge to personally determine probable cause by examining the complainant and witnesses through searching questions and answers in writing and under oath. The Court found that the judge’s examination was insufficient; the deposition was too brief, and the questions asked were leading, calling merely for “yes” or “no” answers. This failure to conduct a rigorous examination to establish probable cause constitutes grave abuse of discretion, rendering the warrant invalid. Furthermore, the seizure of Antonieta Silva’s money was illegal as the warrant only authorized the seizure of marijuana and not money, and she was not a respondent therein. The Court ordered the return of the seized amount to Antonieta Silva.