G.R. No. L-69803 October 8, 1985
CYNTHIA D. NOLASCO, MILA AGUILAR-ROQUE and WILLIE C. TOLENTINO, petitioners, vs. HON. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City; HON. ANTONIO P. SANTOS, Presiding Judge, Branch XLII, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City; HON. SERGIO F. APOSTOL, City Fiscal, Quezon City; HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, LT. GEN. FIDEL RAMOS and COL. JESUS ALTUNA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Mila Aguilar-Roque and Cynthia Nolasco were arrested without a warrant by a Constabulary Security Group (CSG) at a Quezon City street intersection on August 6, 1984. Aguilar-Roque was a known fugitive accused of rebellion. Shortly after this arrest, CSG elements searched Aguilar-Roque’s leased residence at 239-B Mayon Street, Quezon City. The search was conducted pursuant to a warrant issued earlier that day by respondent Judge Ernani Cruz Paño, based on an application and witness deposition alleging the premises contained subversive documents. During the search, petitioner Willie Tolentino, who was in charge of the premises, was arrested, and 431 items, including documents and a typewriter, were seized.
Subsequently, petitioners were charged with illegal possession of subversive documents before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). They filed a Motion to Suppress the seized evidence, arguing the search warrant was void. Respondent MTC Judge Antonio Santos denied the motion, deferring to the search warrant case before Judge Paño. Meanwhile, Judge Paño, in the search warrant proceedings, admitted an Amended Return from the CSG and ruled the seized items were subject to the disposition of the trial court. Petitioners thus filed this special civil action seeking to annul the search warrant, Judge Paño’s order, and Judge Santos’s denial of their motion.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the search of the residence at 239-B Mayon Street and the subsequent seizure of evidence were lawful, and consequently, whether the seized items are admissible as evidence against the petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court declared the search of the residence at 239-B Mayon Street illegal and the evidence obtained therefrom inadmissible. The legal logic proceeds from the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The search cannot be justified as an incident to a lawful arrest. While warrantless searches incidental to arrest are permissible, they are strictly limited to the person of the arrestee and the area within his immediate control to discover weapons or evidence. The arrest of Aguilar-Roque and Nolasco occurred at a street intersection. The subsequent search of a separate residence, which was not the place of arrest and occurred after the arrest was effected, was too remote in time and place to be considered incidental. The search was therefore not contemporaneous with the arrest.
Furthermore, the search warrant itself was invalid. The Court found it was a general warrant, as it authorized the seizure of broad categories of items like “records, documents and other papers of the CPP/NPA” without particularity, violating the constitutional requirement for specific description. Probable cause was also not properly established, as the examining judge failed to ask searching questions of the applicant and witness to verify the basis of their knowledge. Consequently, the search conducted under this void warrant was unlawful. Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained from such an illegal search is inadmissible. However, the Court applied the exception that contraband or items prohibited by law, such as the subversive documents themselves under Presidential Decree No. 33, cannot be ordered returned