G.R. No. 81756 - Silva vs. Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch XXXII, Dumaguete City

On June 13, 1986, M/Sgt. Ranulfo Villamor, Jr., chief of the PC Narcom Detachment in Dumaguete City, filed an “Application for Search Warrant” against Nicomedes Silva and Marlon Silva before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch XXXIII, Dumaguete City. The application was supported by a “Deposition of Witness” executed by Pfc. Arthur M. Alcoran and Pat. Leon T. Quindo.
On the same day, Judge Nickarter A. Ontal issued Search Warrant No. 1, directing police officers to search Marlon Silva’s room in the residence of Nicomedes Silva for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 6425). The warrant specifically authorized seizure of marijuana dried leaves, cigarettes, and joints.

During the execution of the warrant, officers seized not only the specified drug paraphernalia but also P1,231.40 in cash belonging to Antonieta Silva, who was not named in the warrant.
On June 16, 1986, Antonieta Silva moved for return of the money, arguing that the warrant did not authorize its seizure and that the officers failed to file a return of the warrant as required by Rule 126, Section 11 of the Rules of Court.
By Order dated July 1, 1986, Judge Ontal held the disposition of the P1,231.40 in abeyance pending filing of appropriate charges.

On July 28, 1987, petitioners moved to quash Search Warrant No. 1 on two grounds: (a) the application and deposition were mere fill-in-the-blank mimeographed forms; and (b) the judge did not personally examine the applicant and witnesses by way of searching questions and answers, in violation of Rule 126, Sections 3 and 4.
On August 11, 1987, the RTC (now presided by Judge Eugenio M. Cruz) denied the motion to quash for lack of merit. A motion for reconsideration filed on September 1, 1987 was likewise denied on October 19, 1987.

Whether Search Warrant No. 1 was validly issued, considering the constitutional and statutory requirement that a judge must personally determine probable cause through searching questions and answers under oath.
Whether the seizure of P1,231.40 from Antonieta Silva, who was not named in the warrant, and the failure to file a return of the warrant, rendered the search execution illegal.
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying the motion to quash the search warrant and refusing to order the return of the seized money.