GR L 71410; (November, 1986) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-71410 November 25, 1986
JOSEFINO S. ROAN, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ROMULO T. GONZALES, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MARINDUQUE, BRANCH XXXVIII; THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF MARINDUQUE; THE PROVINCIAL COMMANDER, PC-INP MARINDUQUE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Josefino S. Roan sought the annulment of Search Warrant No. 1-84 issued by respondent Judge Romulo T. Gonzales on May 10, 1984. The warrant authorized a search of Roan’s house for specific articles. During its execution on May 12, 1984, the listed items were not found. However, the military officers conducting the search discovered and confiscated a Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets, which were not described in the warrant. These items became the basis for a criminal charge for illegal possession of firearms against Roan. He filed this petition, arguing the search warrant was constitutionally infirm and that the seized evidence was inadmissible.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether Search Warrant No. 1-84 was issued in accordance with constitutional and procedural requirements, thereby determining the admissibility of the firearm and ammunition seized.

RULING

The Supreme Court declared Search Warrant No. 1-84 null and void. The Court emphasized that the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures requires strict compliance with procedural safeguards. A valid search warrant must be based on probable cause, determined by the judge through a personal examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and things to be seized.
The Court found the respondent judge’s examination of the applicant, PC Capt. Mauro P. Quinosa, to be insufficient. The judge merely questioned Quinosa to ascertain if he understood the contents of his already-prepared affidavit, rather than conducting a genuine, searching inquiry to establish probable cause independently. This fell short of the requirement for the judge to personally examine the applicant and take written depositions. Furthermore, the seizure of the revolver and bullets was illegal as these items were not listed in the warrant. Their discovery did not fall under the plain view doctrine, as there was no prior valid intrusion; the search itself was based on an invalid warrant. Consequently, the evidence was inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. The Court, prioritizing the resolution of the serious constitutional issues, assumed jurisdiction despite a procedural flaw, and made permanent the temporary restraining order against the use of the evidence.