Case Summary (G.R. No. L-69803)
Key Dates
• August 6, 1984 – Issuance of Search Warrant No. 80-84.
• October 8, 1985 – Initial en banc decision annulling the warrant and making a temporary restraining order permanent.
• April 10, 1986 – Supreme Court required parties to state their positions following a change of administration.
• January 30, 1987 – Final resolution by the Court en banc.
Applicable Law
• 1973 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 3 (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) and Section 4(2) (mandatory exclusionary rule).
• Rule 126, Section 12 of the 1973 Rules of Court (exception for searches incident to lawful arrest).
Procedural Background
Pursuant to warrants issued by Judge Pano, military authorities searched petitioners’ homes for documents allegedly evidencing rebellion. Petitioners secured a temporary restraining order enjoining introduction of the seized materials in the Subversive Documents Case and moved to annul the warrant as an unconstitutional general warrant.
Initial Supreme Court Decision
On October 8, 1985, the Court en banc declared the warrant void and made the TRO permanent. It nevertheless permitted the Constabulary to retain seized items for use in a separate military commission. The Court further ruled that the search of Mila Aguilar-Roque’s dwelling was valid as incident to her arrest without a warrant.
Motions for Partial Reconsideration
Public respondents argued that the warrant complied with constitutional requirements and was justified by the nature of the rebellion offense, which resists particularization. Petitioners contested the ruling on the warrantless search, insisting that Aguilar-Roque’s arrest was unlawful and could not validate a subsequent search of her home.
Compliance Following Administrative Change
Under Section 18, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the Court required respondents to state whether they maintained their predecessors’ positions. Petitioners reasserted the illegality of both their arrests and searches and demanded the return of all seized personal effects.
Parties’ Current Posture
The Solicitor General, aligning with Chief Justice Teehankee’s dissent, no longer opposed declaring the search illegal or returning the seized items. Respondents, however, continued to uphold the legality of the arrests themselves.
Dissenting Opinion on Exclusionary Rule
Chief Justice Teehankee emphasized that the 1973 Constitution forbids general warrants and unequivocally mandates exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional search-and-seizure protections. He warned that permitting warrantless searches of premises incident to arrest subverts the constitutional requirement for particularized warrants.
Final Resolution
The Court granted petitioners’ motions for partial reconsideration, r
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-69803)
Facts of the Case
- On August 6, 1984, Executive Judge Ernani Cruz Pano issued Search Warrant No. 80-84 for the premises of petitioners Cynthia D. Nolasco, Mila Aguilar-Roque, and Willie C. Tolentino in connection with a Subversive Documents Case.
- The Constabulary Security Group executed the warrant and seized various documents and personal effects (“personalties”) from the petitioners’ residences.
- Petitioners challenged the warrant’s validity and the legality of subsequent searches, arrests, and seizures, leading to the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
Procedural History
- On October 8, 1985, the Supreme Court en banc rendered a decision annulling Search Warrant No. 80-84, setting it aside, and making permanent the TRO against introducing the seized evidence in the Subversive Documents Case.
- The October 8 decision allowed the Constabulary to retain the personalties for introduction in Criminal Case No. SMC-1-1 before Special Military Commission No. 1, subject to objections by petitioner Mila Aguilar-Roque as to relevance.
- Both petitioners and public respondents filed Motions for Partial Reconsideration of the October 8 decision:
- Public respondents defended the warrant’s validity in the context of rebellion charges.
- Petitioners contested the holding that the search of Mila Aguilar-Roque’s premises was incident to her arrest and therefore lawful without a warrant.
Arguments of Public Respondents
- The warrant complied with constitutional and procedural requirements given the nature of the crime of rebellion, where documents are less susceptible of precise description.
- The search should be upheld as incident to a lawful arrest in aid of public safety and evidence preservation.
Arguments of Petitioners
- Warrantless searches are permissible only if incident to a lawful arrest; since Mila Aguilar-Roque’s arrest was not lawful, the subsequent search was illegal.
- All items seized under the void warrant must be returned to