G.R. No. L-69899 July 15, 1985
ROMMEL CORRO, petitioner, vs. HON. ESTEBAN LISING, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch XCV; HON. REMIGIO ZARI, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 98; CITY FISCAL’S OFFICE, Quezon City; LT. COL. BERLIN A. CASTILLO and 1ST LT. GODOFREDO M. IGNACIO, respondents.

FACTS

On September 29, 1983, respondent Judge Esteban Lising issued Search Warrant No. Q-00002 upon application by Lt. Col. Berlin Castillo of the PC-CIS. The warrant authorized the search and seizure of items allegedly used in committing the crime of inciting to sedition, including copies of the Philippine Times, manuscripts, newspaper dummies, subversive documents, and various printing and recording equipment. The search was executed, properties were seized, and the newspaper’s office was padlocked.
On November 6, 1984, petitioner Rommel Corro filed an urgent motion to recall the warrant and return the seized properties. He argued the seized items were not connected to the offense and that the sedition case had been rendered moot by the findings of the Agrava Board on the Aquino assassination. Respondent Judge Lising denied the motion on January 28, 1985, stating the seized articles formed part of the prosecution’s evidence in a separate sedition case pending before another branch and that the proper forum for the request was the City Fiscal’s Office.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the search warrant is valid and whether the petitioner’s motion for its recall and the return of properties was properly filed and timely.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring Search Warrant No. Q-00002 null and void. The Court ordered the return of all seized properties and the reopening of the padlocked office premises.
On procedural grounds, the Court rejected the respondents’ contention that the petition was premature for failure to file a motion for reconsideration. Citing established jurisprudence, the Court held that a motion for reconsideration is not a prerequisite for certiorari when the questions raised were already squarely raised in and passed upon by the lower court, or when fundamental rights such as due process are at stake, rendering the proceedings null.
On the claim of laches, the Court found the petitioner did not unreasonably delay asserting his rights. The warrant was executed on September 29, 1983, and the motion to recall was filed on November 6, 1984. The Court accepted the petitioner’s explanation that he was detained shortly after the search, faced criminal charges, and had to petition for habeas corpus. He filed his motion to recall promptly after being released on recognizance in November 1984. This sequence of events negated any presumption that he had abandoned his right to challenge the warrant’s validity and seek the return of his property. The Court thus concluded the petition was filed within a reasonable time under the circumstances.