Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35149)
Facts:
Eduardo Quintero v. The National Bureau of Investigation, G.R. No. L-35149, June 23, 1988, Supreme Court Second Division, Padilla, J., writing for the Court. The petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction (with preliminary injunction) sought to annul Search Warrant No. 7 dated 31 May 1972 issued by respondent Judge Elias Asuncion of the Court of First Instance of Manila and to void all acts and proceedings thereunder.Petitioner Eduardo Quintero, a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, had delivered a privilege speech on 19 May 1972 disclosing that some delegates received money to influence their functions; he turned over the small cash amounts he possessed to the Convention but initially declined to name the payors. Under pressure, Quintero on 30 May 1972 released a sworn statement to the Convention naming several persons—including the then First Lady—allegedly connected to the payments. President Marcos publicly denounced Quintero and announced steps to “unmask” those behind the affair.
On 31 May 1972 NBI agents, acting on an application accompanied by interrogations before Judge Asuncion, served Search Warrant No. 7 on Quintero’s residence at 2281 Mayon St., Sta. Ana, Manila and claimed to have seized bundles of money amounting to P379,200.00. On 1 June 1972 the NBI filed a criminal complaint for direct bribery with the City Fiscal of Pasay; a preliminary investigation was scheduled. Petitioner filed the present remedies on 5 June 1972; on 6 June 1972 this Court granted a temporary restraining order enjoining use of the seized objects.
The material papers before the issuing judge included an affidavit-like statement by NBI agent Samuel Castro (who admitted he had no personal knowledge of the alleged offense) and an interrogation-transcript of Congressman Artemio Mate recounting what he claimed to have seen/heard in Quintero’s hospital room. The warrant form presented and used was an NBI pre-filled form; the copy left with the occupant named the offense as “grave threats” while the file copy bore an ink correction changing the offense to “Direct Bribery.” Witness accounts of the search showed members of the raiding party conducting searches in parts of the house unaccompanied by independent neighborhood witnesses, and th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the issuance of Search Warrant No. 7 supported by probable cause as required by the 1935 Constitution and Rule 126, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court?
- Did the circumstances surrounding the warrant’s form and issuance (use of a pre-filled NBI form and the post‑issuance alteration/variation in the offense designated) vitiate the validity of the warrant and indicate lack of judicial impartiality?
- Were the subsequent search and seizure procedurally regular under Rule 126 (presence of a competent witness and delivery of a proper receipt), and if not,...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)