G.R. No. 82870 - Prudente vs. Dayrit

On 31 October 1987, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw of the Western Police District filed with RTC Manila, Branch 33, an application for Search Warrant No. 87-14 against Dr. Nemesio E. Prudente for violation of PD No. 1866 (illegal possession of firearms, etc.).
The application alleged that Prudente, as President of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), concealed firearms, explosives, grenades, and ammunition in specified offices on the ground and second floors of the PUP campus at Anonas St., Sta. Mesa, Sampaloc, Manila.

P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles executed a “Deposition of Witness” on the same day, stating he had personal knowledge—derived from several days’ surveillance and “verified sources”—that unlicensed firearms, explosives, and ammunition were kept in the PUP premises under Prudente’s control.
The deposition, sworn before Judge Abelardo M. Dayrit, contained brief questions and answers, all calling for simple affirmations.

Respondent Judge Dayrit issued the search warrant on 31 October 1987, authorizing a day-or-night search of the Department of Military Science and Tactics office (ground floor) and the President’s office (second floor) to seize M-16 rifles, .38/.45 handguns, explosives, hand grenades, and assorted weapons with ammunition.
On 1 November 1987, approximately 200 operatives executed the warrant and recovered three live fragmentation hand grenades from a cabinet drawer in Prudente’s office washroom.

The sole witness lacked personal knowledge and the deposition was not in the form of searching questions and answers.
The warrant was general, failed to describe the place and specific offense, and omitted an urgency certification required by Supreme Court Circular No. 19 for weekend applications.

The prosecution opposed; Prudente filed a supplemental motion. On 9 March and 20 April 1988, Judge Dayrit denied both the motion to quash and the motion for reconsideration. Prudente then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause based on facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant or his witness.
Whether hearsay allegations and non-searching depositions satisfy the constitutional and procedural requirements.

Whether the warrant sufficiently described the place to be searched despite multiple rooms on two floors of the PUP.
Whether the warrant adequately specified the items to be seized.

Whether the warrant complied with the rule that it must be issued in connection with one specific offense under PD No. 1866.
Whether the phrase “illegal possession of firearms, etc.” adequately identifies the particular offense.

Whether failure to state under oath the urgency for a Saturday application invalidates the warrant.
Whether Circular No. 19’s guidelines are mandatory or directory.