Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2076, RTJ-07-2077, RTJ-07-2078, RTJ-07-2079, RTJ-07-2080)
Petitioners and Respondents
Petitioners: Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP), Sr. Vice President Ricardo G. Santiago and several corporate officers.
Respondents: Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion; State Prosecutor Leo B. Dacera III; Special Operations Unit, PNP Traffic Management Command.
Key Dates
• January 25, 1995 – Application and hearing for Search Warrant No. 799(95).
• February 4, 1995 – Execution of the warrant; extensive seizures at PICOP compound.
• March 23 and August 3, 1995 – RTC denies motions to quash and for reconsideration.
• October 23, 1995 – Supreme Court issues TRO.
• May 19, 1999 – Supreme Court decision on certiorari and prohibition.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2 (right against unreasonable searches and seizures).
• Rules of Court, Rule 126, Sections 3–4 (requisites for a valid search warrant).
• PD 1866 (illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives).
• Exclusionary rule (“fruits of the poisonous tree”).
Facts
Pascua’s written application alleged that PICOP’s “Blue Guards” possessed numerous unlicensed firearms—M16 rifles, AK-47s, grenade launchers, handguns, ammunition, hand grenades—hidden within a 155-hectare compound containing hundreds of structures. The application attached affidavits, a joint deposition of Bacolod and Morito, and informant statements. At the hearing, only Bacolod was examined; Pascua and other deponents did not appear or affirm their statements. The RTC issued the warrant, and the SOU executed it, seizing dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition. PICOP filed motions to quash and suppress; the RTC denied them. Petitioners then filed a Rule 65 petition in the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the RTC abused its discretion in issuing Search Warrant No. 799(95) for lack of sufficient probable cause and for violating the prohibition against general warrants.
- Whether the warrant was unlawfully served or implemented.
- Whether State Prosecutor Dacera abused his discretion by proceeding with IS No. 95-167 based on evidence allegedly seized under an invalid warrant.
Preliminary Issue: Questions of Law vs. Fact
The Supreme Court held that petitioners challenged procedural violations of the Constitution and Rules in issuing the warrant—purely legal questions—and thus Rule 65 certiorari was appropriate.
Validity of Search Warrant: Personal Examination
Under the 1987 Constitution and Rule 126, the judge must personally examine the complainant and witnesses under oath, in writing, and attach sworn statements. Here, the RTC only administered oath and took testimony from Bacolod; Pascua and other deponents were never personally examined. Reliance on affidavits alone is insufficient and contrary to established doctrine requiring probing, exhaustive judicial inquiry.
Validity of Search Warrant: Personal Knowledge
Bacolod’s testimony was based on “belief” drawn from informant reports and surveillance, not on facts within his personal knowledge that PICOP or its security detail lacked licenses. No certification from the Firearms and Explosives Office was produced. The absence of the best available evidence concerning licensing, without justification, rendered probable cause improperly established.
Validity of Search Warrant: Particularity
The warrant described only the entire PICOP compound—“Barangay Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2076, RTJ-07-2077, RTJ-07-2078, RTJ-07-2079, RTJ-07-2080)
Procedural History
- Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65, seeking nullification of Search Warrant No. 799 (95) and two RTC orders (dated March 23, 1993 and August 3, 1995) and injunctive relief against State Prosecutor Dacera’s prosecution in IS No. 95-167.
- On October 23, 1995, the Supreme Court granted a temporary restraining order and required respondents’ comments.
- The PNP Traffic Management Command (Special Operations Unit) filed an opposition with annexes; the Office of the Solicitor General later filed a comment agreeing with petitioners.
- The Court directed State Prosecutor Dacera, then the PNP SOU, to file memoranda; repeated orders were issued when Dacera and the SOU failed to comply, culminating in a waiver of their right to file.
- The petition was deemed submitted for decision based on the records and memoranda on file.
Facts of the Case
- On January 25, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Napoleon B. Pascua applied for a search warrant before RTC Branch 104, Quezon City, alleging that Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) and its “Blue Guards” security force were unlawfully in possession of high-powered firearms, ammunition and explosives in PICOP’s compound in Bislig, Surigao del Sur.
- The application listed specific items: 70 M16 Armalite rifles, 10 M14 US rifles, 2 AK-47 rifles, 2 UZI submachine guns, 2 M203 grenade launchers, 10 .45 caliber pistols, 10 .38 revolvers, 2 ammunition reloading machines, assorted ammunition, and 10 hand grenades.
- Supporting documents included: the joint deposition of SPO3 Cicero S. Bacolod and SPO2 Cecilio T. Morito, a summary of information, and supplementary statements of Mario Enad and Felipe Moreno.
- At the hearing, only Bacolod was presented; Chief Inspector Pascua did not affirm his application and no other witnesses were examined under oath before the judge.
- Judge Asuncion issued Search Warrant No. 799 (95), authorizing a daytime search of “the aforementioned premises” (the entire PICOP compound) and the seizure of the listed firearms and munitions.
- On February 4, 1995, law enforcement officers executed the warrant and seized hundreds of firearms (including rifles, shotguns, pistols), magazines, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and explosiv