GR L 64261; (December, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-64261 December 26, 1984
JOSE BURGOS, SR., JOSE BURGOS, JR., BAYANI SORIANO and J. BURGOS MEDIA SERVICES, INC., petitioners, vs. THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY COMMAND, THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
On December 7, 1982, respondent Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano issued two search warrants against the business addresses of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers. Military authorities, led by Col. Rolando Abadilla, conducted searches and seized printing equipment, motor vehicles, and numerous documents alleged to be in the possession of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr., publisher-editor of “We Forum.” The seizures were based on the allegation that the items were used in committing subversion under P.D. No. 885, as amended. The search was widely publicized.
Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus on June 16, 1983, directly assailing the validity of the search warrants and seeking the return of the seized articles and an injunction against their use as evidence in Criminal Case No. Q-022782. Respondents moved for dismissal on procedural grounds, arguing petitioners failed to first file a motion to quash in the issuing court and that the petition was filed after more than six months, constituting laches.
ISSUE
Whether the search warrants issued against the petitioners are constitutionally valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court declared the search warrants null and void. The Court first addressed procedural objections. While petitioners should have initially sought quashal in the issuing court, the Court suspended its rules due to the paramount constitutional issues raised and the significant public interest involved. On laches, the Court accepted petitioners’ explanation that they first exhausted extrajudicial appeals to executive officials, which negated any presumption of abandonment of their rights.
On substantive grounds, the warrants violated constitutional requirements. First, they were issued without probable cause. The applications failed to allege a specific offense with concrete facts; they merely made a general claim that the items were used for subversion under P.D. No. 885 without reference to any determinate provision. Probable cause requires a specific offense, not abstract averments.
Second, the warrants were general warrants lacking particularity. They authorized the seizure of “subversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books and other publication” intended to promote certain organizations, without describing with specificity what made these items subversive. This allowed officers unbridled discretion in determining what to seize, contravening the constitutional mandate that warrants must particularly describe the things to be seized. Consequently, all seized articles were ordered returned, and they were declared inadmissible as evidence under the exclusionary rule.