Title
Castro vs. Pabalan
Case
G.R. No. L-28642
Decision Date
Apr 30, 1976
The Supreme Court declares a search warrant illegal due to its failure to comply with the constitutional requirement of probable cause and the particular description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized, ordering the return of certain seized items and declaring illegally seized documents as inadmissible evidence.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28642)

Facts:

  • Petitioners Maria Castro and Co Ling challenged the validity of a search warrant issued by Judge Javier Pabalan of the Court of First Instance of La Union.
  • The search warrant was issued on July 10, 1967, based on the application of Sgt. Ernesto Lumang, who claimed the petitioners possessed narcotics and other contraband.
  • The application was supported by a joint affidavit from Sgt. Francisco C. Molina and Cpl. Lorenzo G. Apilado of the Philippine Constabulary.
  • The search warrant did not specify the particular offense, the exact premises to be searched, or the specific items to be seized.
  • The petitioners questioned the validity of the warrant, but the respondent court upheld it and denied their motions for reconsideration.
  • The petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court through a writ of certiorari, arguing that the search warrant violated constitutional and procedural requirements.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that the search warrant was issued without probable cause and without a particular description of the place to be searched and the items to be seized, thus violating constitutional and procedural requirements.
  2. The Court found that the search warrant failed to specify a single specific offense, which is a mandatory requirement under the law.
  3. The Court ordered the return of certain seiz...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court, through Acting Chief Justice Fernando, emphasized the strict adherence to constitutional and procedural requirements for the issuance of search warrants.
  • The Court cited the landmark case of "Stonehill v. Diokno," which underscored the necessity of probable cause and a particular description of the items to be seized.
  • The Court found that the application for the search warrant and the warrant itself were deficient in these respects.
  • The averments in the application were abstract, and the judge's inquiry was brief and perfunctory, failing to meet the constitutional standard for probable cause.
  • The search warrant did not provide a particular de...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.