Case Summary (G.R. No. 50720)
Procedural History in the Trial Court
Upon realizing the missing documentation, petitioner filed a motion to quash the warrant and to return seized items, invoking Section 4, Rule 126. The trial judge denied the motion on March 1, 1979, certifying that an examination under oath of the private respondents had been conducted and that the Rules of Court did not prescribe a specific time for record attachment. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on March 21, 1979.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the search warrant complied with the constitutional and statutory requirements for issuance—specifically, the personal examination under oath of the complainant and witnesses, the taking of their depositions in writing, and the timely attachment of those depositions to the court record.
Constitutional and Rule 126 Requirements
Under the 1973 Constitution, no search warrant may issue without probable cause determined by “examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.” Rule 126, Section 4, mandates that the issuing judge must personally examine these individuals, take their depositions in writing, and attach the written depositions to the record in addition to any affidavits. These procedures ensure a proper determination of probable cause and allow for perjury accountability.
Non-Compliance and Invalidity of the Warrant
The Court found that Judge Bayona failed to take written depositions of Goles and Mayote and did not attach any such depositions to the criminal case record. The judge’s claim of having examined the applicants under oath was undermined by the absence of certification on the affidavits and by her own admission that formal depositions were not taken to avoid a public proceeding. This procedural omission rendered the warrant constitutionally and statutorily invalid.
Emphasis on Strict Adherence to Rights
The decision reiterated that the power to search and seize, while necessary for public welfare, must not infringe constitutional liberties. Citations from Asian Surety & Insurance Co. vs. Herrera and other authorities underscore the necess
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 50720)
Facts and Procedural History
- Petitioner Soriano Mata was accused under PD 810, as amended by PD 1306, for selling illegal “masiao tickets” in the Jai Alai game.
- A search warrant was issued by Respondent Judge Bayona based solely on an application and a joint affidavit sworn before the Clerk of Court.
- Petitioner discovered no search warrant or supporting documents in Criminal Case No. 4298-CC and demanded their production.
- Respondent Judge allegedly replied that the papers “are with the court” and later handed them to the City Fiscal, who attached them to the records.
- Petitioner filed a motion to quash and annul the warrant and for the return of seized articles under Section 4, Rule 126, which was denied on March 1, 1979.
- A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on March 21, 1979, prompting the petition to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- The search warrant failed to comply with constitutional and Rule of Court requisites.
- The warrant was grounded only on affidavits wrongfully subscribed and sworn before a clerk, not before a judge.
- No depositions in writing of the complainant or witnesses were ever taken or attached to the record.
- The absence of certifications at the back of the affidavits raised doubts about any examination under oath.
- All articles seized under the invalid warrant should be declared inadmissible or returned.
Respondent Judge’s Justifications
- The court “made a thorough investigation and examination under oath” of Intelligence officers Goles and Mayote and certified the same.
- The t