G.R. No. 84873 - Pendon vs. Court of Appeals

On February 4, 1987, First Lieutenant Felipe L. Rojas, acting as the officer-in-charge of the PC-CIS in Bacolod City, filed an application for a search warrant.
The application alleged that Kenneth Siao, who allegedly operated from Kener Trading located at the intersection of Rizal and Lacson Streets, possessed several items linked to NAPOCOR. These items included:

Ignacio L. Reyes, a 34-year-old married employee of NAPOCOR residing in Bacolod City
IAI Eduardo Abaja, a regular member of the PC-CIS

The deposition was notarized and noted that the questions were pre-typed and answered in a manner that suggests the absence of an individualized, probing inquiry by the judge.

Judge Demosthenes D. Magallanes of the Municipal Trial Court of Bacolod City issued Search Warrant No. 181 based on the application and deposition.
The warrant directed peace officers to search the premises of Kener Trading and seize the items described therein.
Constabulary officers later executed the search and seized:

272 kilos of galvanized bolts (including variations such as V-chuckle and U-bolts)
A 3 and 1/2 feet angular bar

A receipt for the seized items was signed by PC Sergeant Digno Mamaril, acknowledging that the articles were taken from Kenneth Siao.

A complaint for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612) was initially filed against Kenneth Siao by the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR).
In response, Kenneth Siao submitted a counter-affidavit asserting that he had already relinquished his rights and interests in Kener Trading to petitioner Erle Pendon.
On May 18, 1987, the City Fiscal recommended dismissing the complaint against Siao and, instead, filing a complaint for the same offense against petitioner Pendon.
Consequently, on the same day, a complaint under Criminal Case No. 5657 for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law was registered against petitioner Pendon before the Regional Trial Court (Branch 47) of Negros Occidental.

Prior to arraignment, petitioner Pendon filed an application on July 9, 1987, for the return of the seized articles on the ground that the search warrant was allegedly issued illegally.
The application was opposed by the prosecuting fiscal, leading to a subsequent amendment seeking the quashal of the search warrant and the return of the seized items.
On August 24, 1987, Judge Enrique T. Jocson of Branch 47 indirectly denied the quashal application without directly ruling on the warrant’s validity, basing his decision, in part, on the admission that one of the seized items bore NAPOCOR’s identifying mark.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but was denied on October 14, 1987, and further dismissed by the Court of Appeals on April 4, 1988, which had upheld the existence of probable cause for the warrant’s issuance.

The petitioner argued that the entire process of issuing the search warrant was flawed because:

The application and joint deposition failed to comply with constitutional requisites for searching questions and answers under oath.
The judge did not personally examine the applicant nor conduct an effective, probing inquiry.

Petitioner further contended that the deposition did not establish that any specific offense had been committed by him or that the items possessed were stolen or were proceeds of a crime.
The petitioner invoked the right against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the Constitution, asserting that his right to security in his person and effects had been violated.

The search warrant was criticized for its generality, as the description of the items was so broad that it potentially permitted the seizure of a significant portion of the business property of Kener Trading.
Essential details linking the articles to the alleged offense were missing from both the application and the deponents’ testimony, thereby undermining the claim of probable cause.
Although the lower courts noted certain indications of probable cause (e.g., one seized item bore the complainant’s mark), they did not overcome the significant procedural infirmities identified by the petitioner.

Was the search warrant issued in strict compliance with the constitutional requirement for a personal, in-court examination of the applicant and the witnesses through searching questions and answers under oath?
Did the pre-typed, joint depositions suffice to establish probable cause for the search, or did they fall short of the statutory and constitutional mandate?

Was the general description of items (e.g., galvanized bolts, angular bar) sufficiently precise, as required by law, to avoid an overly broad seizure?
Could the generic nature of the description result in the seizure of property that does not necessarily constitute evidence of any offense?

Does the alleged failure to adhere to the procedural safeguards violate the petitioner’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Should any evidence obtained from an improperly issued search warrant be excluded from use in criminal proceedings?