G.R. No. 248395 - People vs. Gabiosa Sr.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 248395)

Facts

PO1 Rodolfo M. Geverola executed an affidavit recounting intelligence, surveillance, recruitment of an “Action Agent,” and a test buy on January 18, 2017 at respondent Gabiosa’s residence. The affidavit alleges that the Action Agent contacted the target, the target handed a small sachet of suspected “shabu” in exchange for P1,000.00, and the specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride at the Provincial Crime Laboratory. The warrant application, filed by P/Supt. Ajero and supported by Geverola’s affidavit and a location sketch, led Judge Balagot to conduct an on-the-record preliminary examination of PO1 Geverola; the transcript shows the judge asked questions about the test buy, the house description, the sketch, and whether the witness had personal knowledge of the events.

Lower-Court Proceedings (RTC)

Gabiosa moved to quash the warrant and suppress evidence on constitutional grounds. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion to quash, ruling that the issuing judge is not mandatorily required to examine both the complainant and the witness; what matters is the existence of probable cause and that the witness possess personal knowledge of facts supporting issuance. The RTC further held that the Constitution does not prescribe a particular form of questions and that a judge may have the witness affirm his affidavit as sufficient if probable cause is established.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals granted Gabiosa’s petition for certiorari, set aside the RTC resolution, declared Search Warrant No. 149-2017 null and void, and ordered suppression of evidence obtained under it. The CA’s reasoning emphasized the constitutional wording — noting the conjunctive “and” in Article III, Section 2 — and concluded that the Constitution requires the issuing judge to personally examine both the complainant and the witnesses produced by the complainant. The CA additionally criticized the issuing judge’s questioning as superficial and perfunctory, finding that the examination failed to establish the witness’s personal and continuing knowledge that Gabiosa remained in possession of illegal drugs.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the search warrant and holding the RTC to have committed grave abuse of discretion by upholding the warrant, particularly insofar as the CA construed Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution to require that both the complainant and the witnesses be personally examined by the issuing judge and found the judge’s questioning inadequate.

Governing Constitutional Provision

Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and provides that no search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause “to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,” and with a particular description of place and items to be seized. The Court applies the 1987 Constitution as the operative charter in this decision.

Supreme Court Holding

The Supreme Court granted the People’s Petition for Review on Certiorari, held that the Court of Appeals erred, and reinstated the RTC resolution denying the motion to quash and suppress. The Supreme Court concluded that the warrant was validly issued and that the CA wrongly annulled it.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Purpose of the Constitutional Requirement

The Court reiterated that the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is fundamental and that the warrant safeguard exists to ensure that a magistrate personally determines whether probable cause exists before authorizing an intrusion into privacy. The requisites for a valid warrant include probable cause, personal determination of probable cause by the judge, examination under oath of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularity in description.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Interpretation of “and” in the Provision

The Court rejected the CA’s literalist construction that the conjunctive “and” in the constitutional phrase mandates mandatory personal examination of both the complainant and every witness in every case. Citing Alvarez v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas (1937), the Court explained that the practical purpose is for the judge to be satisfied that probable cause exists; if the affidavit of the applicant or the testimony of a witness alone suffices to convince the judge of probable cause, the judge need not mechanically examine both. The Court emphasized substance over form: the operative requirement is that the magistrate personally determine probable cause, not that a predetermined combination of persons be examined irrespective of whether such examination would illuminate the facts.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Adequacy of Judicial Examination in This Case

Applying the foregoing principles, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in Judge Balagot’s conduct. The transcript shows that the judge asked questions designed to ascertain whether PO1 Geverola had personal knowledge of the alleged transaction and the location of the house; Geverola described the test buy, the house, confirmed the sketch, and identified the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 248395)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 869 Phil. 848; 117 OG No. 36, 9140 (September 6, 2021), First Division, G.R. No. 248395, January 29, 2020.
Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the People of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated February 13, 2019 and Resolution dated July 10, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP No. 08536-MIN.
The CA had granted respondent Roberto Rey E. Gabiosa’s Petition for Certiorari and declared Search Warrant No. 149-2017 null and void; the OSG sought review before the Supreme Court.
Decision of the Supreme Court penned by Justice Caguioa, with Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), J. Reyes, Jr., Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez, JJ., concurring.

Core Facts as Summarized by the Court of Appeals

On January 20, 2017, Police Superintendent Leo Tayabas Ajero (P/Supt Ajero), Officer-in-Charge of Kidapawan City Police Station, applied to Executive Judge Arvin Sadiri B. Balagot for issuance of a search warrant against respondent Roberto Rey Gabiosa.
The application was supported by the affidavit of Police Officer 1 Rodolfo M. Geverola (PO1 Geverola), an attached sketch, and a submitted drug sample subsequently tested by the Provincial Crime Laboratory Field Office.
Judge Balagot conducted a preliminary examination of PO1 Geverola based on the submitted affidavit and transcript of examination.
Search Warrant No. 149-2017 was issued by Judge Balagot; the warrant was then served on respondent.
Respondent filed a Motion to Quash (Search Warrant dated 20 January 2017) and Suppression of Evidence on March 13, 2017, asserting violation of his constitutional and human rights.

Material Averments in PO1 Geverola’s Affidavit (as quoted in the record)

Informant advised that Roberto Rey Gabiosa (alias Jojo), a resident of Apo Sandawa Homes Phase 1, Brgy. Poblacion, Kidapawan City, was selling Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) at his house.
After casing and monitoring, operatives observed various male persons coming and going, some noted as drug users; the operatives recruited an “Action Agent” to perform a test buy.
On January 18, 2017 at about 7:20 p.m., PO1 Geverola and the Action Agent went to Gabiosa’s house in a service vehicle; the Action Agent called the target by cellphone.
A male, described as about 55 years old and later identified to PO1 Geverola as Gabiosa, came to the gate carrying an umbrella; the Action Agent negotiated a purchase for P1,000; Gabiosa allegedly handed a small sachet containing suspected shabu in exchange for payment.
PO1 Geverola described the house as a two-storey concrete house with a half concrete and half steel fence and a red steel gate.
The seized sachet was submitted to the Provincial Crime Laboratory Field Office, yielding a positive qualitative test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride as per Chemistry Report Number PC-D-004-2017 dated January 18, 2017.

Preliminary Examination by the Issuing Judge (Transcript Highlights)

Judge Balagot orally examined PO1 Geverola under oath to determine probable cause prior to issuing the warrant.
Questions and answers transcribed include:
- Confirmation that PO1 Geverola went to Gabiosa’s house with the Action Agent, drove a four-wheeled vehicle, stopped nearby, and that the Action Agent called Gabiosa who came out to the gate.
- PO1 Geverola acknowledged he personally alighted from the vehicle and engaged Gabiosa, handed P1,000 and received the shabu sachet.
- PO1 Geverola described the house (two-storey, concrete, gate colored red) and confirmed the attached sketch reflected the house location.
- He confirmed submission of the item to the crime laboratory and reported a positive result.
- In response to whether he had reason to believe Gabiosa still possessed illegal drugs after the test buy, PO1 Geverola answered affirmatively, explaining that they had a man observing Gabiosa.
- The service vehicle was described as a red Suzuki four-wheeled vehicle.

Issuance of the Search Warrant and Subsequent Motion to Quash

Judge Balagot found probable cause and issued Search Warrant No. 149-2017.
The search warrant was executed; respondent moved to quash the warrant and suppress evidence, alleging gross violation of constitutional rights.

Regional Trial Court (RTC) Rulings

RTC Branch 23, Kidapawan City, in a Resolution dated September 26, 2017, denied respondent’s Motion to Quash and Suppress Evidence.
RTC reasoning:
- The issuing judge is not mandatorily required to examine both the complainant and the witness; examination of one witness with personal knowledge is sufficient to establish probable cause.
- The manner or form of the questions propounded by the judge is not prescribed by rule; the essential requirement is that the judge must satisfy himself that probable cause exists and that examination under oath is conducted.
- Repetition of affidavit averments during oral examination does not vitiate the process so long as the witness’s answers are under oath and based on personal knowledge.
RTC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated December 21, 2017.

Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling and Rationale

CA, in its Decision dated February 13, 2019 (authored by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, with concurring justices), granted respondent’s Petition for Certiorari and declared Search Warrant No. 149-2017 null and void; the CA ordered the suppression of evidence obtained by virtue of the wa