G.R. No. 94902 -0 April 21, 1999
BENJAMIN V. KHO and ELIZABETH ALINDOGAN, petitioners, vs. HON. ROBERTO L. MAKALINTAL and NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Benjamin Kho and Elizabeth Alindogan filed a petition for certiorari to annul the Metropolitan Trial Court Order denying their Motion to Quash several search warrants. The warrants, issued by respondent Judge Makalintal on May 15, 1990, authorized the NBI to search two residences of petitioner Kho in Parañaque based on applications alleging these locations were storage centers for unlicensed firearms and “chop-chop” vehicles. The NBI agents, after surveillance, testified they personally saw firearms being unloaded and carried into the premises. The subsequent searches yielded numerous high-powered firearms, ammunition, explosives, radio equipment, and motor vehicles, which verification showed were unlicensed.
Petitioners moved to quash the warrants, contending they were issued without probable cause, were general warrants, violated constitutional and procedural requirements, and were illegally served. They also claimed the seized items were legally possessed government property of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB), where Kho was an agent. The respondent Judge denied the motion, prompting this petition which also sought mandamus to compel the return of the seized items and to restrain their use as evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the search warrants and in denying the Motion to Quash them.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the core issue of probable cause, the Court upheld the respondent Judge’s determination. The applications were based on the personal knowledge of the NBI applicants and their witnesses, who conducted surveillance and testified under oath to seeing firearms transported into the subject houses. The examining judge has the singular opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses and determine the existence of probable cause from their direct accounts. The Court found no reason to disturb this finding, as the judge personally examined the applicants with searching questions.
The petitioners’ ancillary allegations regarding the alleged abusive manner of the search’s execution—such as forcible entry and restraint of occupants—are not proper grounds in a motion to quash, which challenges the validity of the warrant’s issuance, not its service. Remedies for any enforcement abuses lie in separate penal, civil, or administrative actions. Furthermore, petitioners’ claim that the seized items were government property involves a question of fact inappropriate for resolution in this proceeding, as it would preempt the pending criminal cases for illegal possession of firearms and violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act. Finally, with those criminal cases already instituted, the petition for mandamus to return the evidence and restrain its use has become moot and academic.