G.R. No. 248395 - People vs. Gabiosa Sr.

On January 20, 2017, Police Superintendent Leo Tayabas Ajero, Officer-in-Charge of Kidapawan City Police Station, applied for Search Warrant No. 149-2017 before Executive Judge Arvin Sadiri B. Balagot, attaching the affidavit of Police Officer 1 Rodolfo M. Geverola.
The affidavit recounted:

Intelligence report (January 7, 2017) that respondent Roberto Rey E. Gabiosa was selling methamphetamine (“shabu”) at his residence in Apo Sandawa Homes Phase 1, Brgy. Poblacion, Kidapawan City.
Casing and monitoring that revealed drug users entering and exiting the house, leading to recruitment of an “Action Agent” for a test-buy.
Test-buy operation on January 18, 2017 (7:20 PM), where PO1 Geverola, posing as buyer with the Action Agent, paid ₱1,000 and received a sachet of suspected shabu.
Description of the house as two-storey, concrete with red steel gate, half-concrete and half-steel fence.
Chemistry Report No. PC-D-004-2017 (January 18, 2017) confirming the substance as methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Judge Balagot conducted a preliminary examination of PO1 Geverola under oath, asking about the test-buy, surveillance details, the sketch plan, and lab result.
Finding probable cause, he issued Search Warrant No. 149-2017, which was subsequently served on Gabiosa.

On March 13, 2017, Gabiosa filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant and Suppress Evidence, alleging constitutional violations in the warrant’s issuance.
RTC Branch 23, Kidapawan City, in resolutions dated September 26 and December 21, 2017, denied the motion, holding that:

The judge was not required to examine both the complainant and his witness(es) so long as probable cause was established upon examination of one witness with personal knowledge.
The judge’s re-hashing of affidavit averments did not invalidate the examination under oath and did not prevent him from personally determining probable cause.

Gabiosa petitioned the CA for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
In a Decision dated February 13, 2019, the CA granted the petition, declared Search Warrant No. 149-2017 null and void, and held all evidence inadmissible, on the ground that:

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution uses the conjunctive “and,” requiring personal examination of both complainant and witnesses.
Judge Balagot’s questions were superficial and perfunctory, failing to probe witness’ personal knowledge and location details.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the CA’s ruling.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in declaring Search Warrant No. 149-2017 void on the ground that the issuing judge examined only the witness and not the complainant, and that his questions were superficial.
Whether personal examination of either the complainant or a witness with personal knowledge is sufficient to establish probable cause under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.