Title
Pendon vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 84873
Decision Date
Nov 16, 1990
Search warrant issued without proper examination, lacking probable cause; seized items ordered returned due to constitutional violations and overbroad description.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 84873)

Background of the Case

Lieutenant Rojas applied for a search warrant claiming that Kenneth Siao, associated with Kener Trading, possessed items allegedly stolen from the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR)—specifically galvanized bolts, grounding motor drive assembly, and aluminum wires. The application was supported by witness depositions from Ignacio L. Reyes, an employee of NAPOCOR, and IA Eduardo Abaja from the Philippine Constabulary's Criminal Investigation Service.

Search Warrant Issuance

Based on the application and depositions, Judge Demosthenes D. Magallanes of the Municipal Trial Court of Bacolod City issued Search Warrant No. 181, allowing law enforcement to search Kener Trading and seize the described items. Constabulary officers conducted the search and seized various items. A complaint against Kenneth Siao was subsequently filed for violating the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612), which led to further legal actions against Erle Pendon, claiming he was liable for the same violation.

Legal Arguments and Applications

Pendon contested the legality of the search warrant prior to his arraignment, arguing that it was improperly issued. He filed an application for the return of the seized items, contending that proper legal procedures were not followed in issuing the warrant. The opposing prosecuting fiscal argued against this application, leading to a series of orders where Judge Jocson denied the application for the quashal of the warrant without specifically addressing its validity.

Court of Appeals Decision

Pendon subsequently sought relief from the Court of Appeals, challenging the issuance of the warrant and the validity of the subsequent decisions made by the trial court. On April 4, 1988, the appellate court dismissed Pendon's petition, asserting that probable cause existed for the warrant's issuance and that the trial court's decisions were justified.

Constitutional Requirements for Search Warrant

The core issue examined by the Supreme Court was whether Search Warrant No. 181 met the constitutional requirements as laid out in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that search warrants must be issued based on probable cause that needs to be established through personal examination of the complainant and witnesses by the judge.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Validity

The Supreme Court found that the requirements for establishing probable cause had not been met. It emphasized that the judge must personally examine the witnesses under oath and reduce their testimonies to the form of searching questions and answers. The Court noted that the application relied on pre-typed questions, and the applicant did not provide sufficient personal kn

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.