Case Digest (G.R. No. 71410)
Facts:
In Josefino Roan v. Hon. Romulo T. Gonzales (G.R. No. 71410, November 25, 1986), petitioner Roan challenged the validity of Search Warrant No. 1-84 issued on May 10, 1984 by Judge Romulo T. Gonzales of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXXVIII in Marinduque, upon application by PC Capt. Mauro P. Quillosa. Quillosa based his petition on the affidavits and depositions of two “intelligence informers,” Esmael Morada and Jesus Tohilida, alleging that eight men delivered firearms to Roan’s residence on May 2, 1984. Although the warrant described specific items to be seized, none were found during the May 12 search. Instead, military officers uncovered a Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets, which were confiscated and became the basis for charging Roan with illegal possession of firearms under P.D. 1866. Roan signed a purported waiver under military pressure and moved to quash the warrant in the trial court. After his petition to the Supreme Court was temporarily restrained, hCase Digest (G.R. No. 71410)
Facts:
- Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner: Josefino Roan, charged with illegal possession of firearms after military search of his residence in Marinduque.
- Respondents: Hon. Romulo T. Gonzales, Presiding Judge, RTC Marinduque Branch XXXVIII; Provincial Fiscal; Provincial Commander, PC-INP Marinduque.
- Issuance and Execution of Search Warrant
- May 10, 1984: RTC Judge Gonzales issues Search Warrant No. 1-84 authorizing search of petitioner’s house for specified firearms allegedly delivered on May 2, 1984.
- May 12, 1984: Military officers execute the warrant; they find no articles listed but seize one Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets not described in the warrant.
- Challenged Defects and Waiver Allegation
- Petitioner’s motion: Claim of invalid warrant due to failure of the judge to take written depositions of the complainant and full examination under oath, as mandated by Sec. 3, Art. IV, 1973 Constitution and Rule 126, Sec. 4, Rules of Court.
- Respondents’ contentions: Waiver of warrant defects by petitioner’s written consent under perceived coercion; alternatively, firearms were malum prohibitum and could be seized without warrant.
Issues:
- Validity of Search Warrant
- Whether the issuing judge complied with the constitutional and procedural requirement to examine under oath the complainant and witnesses and take their written depositions before issuing the warrant.
- Whether the warrant’s description of place and things to be seized was sufficiently specific.
- Admissibility of Seized Firearms
- Whether petitioner’s alleged waiver of defects in the execution of the search warrant was voluntary and effective.
- Whether the Colt Magnum revolver and bullets, as malum prohibitum items, could be lawfully seized without a valid warrant.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)