Case Digest (G.R. No. 248395)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Roberto Rey E. Gabiosa, G.R. No. 248395, January 29, 2020, the Supreme Court First Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.On January 20, 2017, Police Superintendent Leo Tayabas Ajero (the complainant/applicant) sought issuance of Search Warrant No. 149‑2017 from Executive Judge Arvin Sadiri B. Balagot, attaching the affidavit of Police Officer 1 Rodolfo M. Geverola. PO1 Geverola averred that after surveillance and a recruited “action agent” conducted a test‑buy on January 18, 2017 at respondent Roberto Rey E. Gabiosa’s residence, the action agent bought a sachet of suspected shabu which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The affidavit described Gabiosa’s house and included a sketch of its location.
Judge Balagot conducted an on‑the‑record examination under oath of PO1 Geverola. The transcript shows the judge elicited details about the test‑buy, how the purchase transpired, the physical description of the house, and that the purchased item was sent to the provincial crime laboratory and tested positive. Finding probable cause, the judge issued Search Warrant No. 149‑2017, which was subsequently served.
Gabiosa filed a Motion to Quash and to Suppress Evidence (March 13, 2017), arguing the warrant violated constitutional safeguards. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 23, Kidapawan City) denied the motion in a Resolution dated September 26, 2017 and denied reconsideration on December 21, 2017, explaining that the issuing judge need not examine both the complainant and a witness if one witness furnished personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause.
Gabiosa filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. In a Decision dated February 13, 2019, the CA granted the petition, set aside the RTC resolution, declared the search warrant null and void, and ruled that the issuing judge had to personally examine both the complainant and the witnesses (relying on a textual reading of Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution), and that the judge’s questioning was superficial. The CA denied the People’s motion for reconsideration in a July 10, 2019 Resolution.
The People, through the Office of the Solicit...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly interpret Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution as requiring the issuing judge to personally examine both the complainant and the witnesses before issuing a search warrant?
- Did the issuing judge fail to propound probing questions such that the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)