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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 248395)

Factual Background

Police Superintendent Leo Tayabas Ajero applied for a search warrant before Judge Arvin Sadiri B. Balagot on the basis of an affidavit by Police Officer 1 Rodolfo M. Geverola. The affidavit averred that intelligence received information that respondent sold methamphetamine hydrochloride ("shabu") at his residence, that surveillance and casing observed persons coming and going, and that an action agent effected a controlled purchase from respondent on the evening of January 18, 2017 for One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00). The sachet obtained was submitted to the Provincial Crime Laboratory and produced Chemistry Report No. PC-D-004-2017, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Judge Balagot conducted a preliminary examination of PO1 Geverola on the record, thereafter issued Search Warrant No. 149-2017, and the warrant was executed against respondent.

Motion to Quash and Trial Court Ruling

Respondent filed a Motion to Quash and Suppress on March 13, 2017, alleging that the warrant violated his constitutional rights. The RTC denied the motion in a Resolution dated September 26, 2017 and denied reconsideration on December 21, 2017. The RTC held that the issuing judge was not required to examine both the complainant and his witness where examination of one witness established probable cause, and that the Constitution and rules do not prescribe the particular form of questioning so long as the judge personally satisfies himself of the existence of probable cause. The RTC therefore concluded that the judge's re-examination of the witness, even if largely repetitive of the affidavit, met the constitutional mandate.

Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals

Respondent sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals, contending that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion to quash. The CA granted the petition in a Decision dated February 13, 2019, set aside the RTC Resolution, declared Search Warrant No. 149-2017 null and void, and ruled the search and any evidence derived therefrom inadmissible. The CA rested its ruling principally on a textual construction of Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution, interpreting the conjunctive "and" in the phrase "after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce" to mean that the issuing judge must personally examine both the complainant and the witnesses in every case. The CA also found that Judge Balagot's questions were superficial and perfunctory and that he failed to propound sufficiently probing questions to establish the witness's personal knowledge and the continuing existence of the items to be seized.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered whether the CA erred in granting the petition for certiorari and in declaring the search warrant invalid, and whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying respondent's motion to quash and suppress.

Supreme Court's Holding

The petition for review was granted. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the RTC resolution and in declaring Search Warrant No. 149-2017 null and void. The RTC Resolution dated September 26, 2017 in Criminal Case No. 4005-2017 was reinstated.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed that the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures in Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution preserves the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, and that the principal exception to that protection is a warrant issued upon probable cause determined personally by a judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. The Court explained that the sine qua non of the warrant requirement is the personal satisfaction of the magistrate that probable cause exists. The Court rejected the CA's literalist reliance on the conjunctive "and" as imposing a rigid rule that both complainant and witness must always be examined regardless of circumstances. The Court cited earlier authority, notably Alvarez v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, to show that the purpose of the examination is to satisfy the magistrate that probable cause exists, and that the judge may rely on the affidavit of either the complainant or witnesses if one is sufficient to establish probable cause. The Court reasoned that if the affidavit or testimony of the complainant suffices, the judge may dispense with other witnesses; conversely, where the witness possesses personal knowledge, the judge may examine the witness without eliciting additional testimony from a complainant who lacks personal knowledge.

The Court emphasized that the focus is substance and not form: whether the judge was personally convinced that probable cause existed. The Court further held that the CA erred in finding the preliminary examination perfunctory. The transcript showed that Judge Balagot asked questions to confirm that PO1 Geverola acted on his own personal knowledge, that he personally conducted the controlled buy, that he could describe respondent's house, and that he knew someone kept the subject under observation to establish the continuing existence of the items. The sketch attached to the application and the witness's description of the house informed the judge's determination. The Court invoked People v. Choi to restate that the scope and nature of a judge's questioning lie largely within judicial discretion, that the examination must be probing and exhaustive but need not follow a fixed formula, and that findings of the examining magistrate deserve great weight and are reversible only where the judge disregarded facts or reason.

Application of Precedent and Doctrinal Clarification

The Court distinguished the CA's textual construction from settled precedent. It held that requiring mechanical compliance with the conjunctive "and" would frustrate the constitutional purpose by el

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 248395)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari through the Office of the Solicitor General challenging the Court of Appeals' decision that set aside a search warrant.
Roberto Rey E. Gabiosa, Sr. moved to quash Search Warrant No. 149-2017 and to suppress evidence obtained under its authority.
The trial court, Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan City, denied the Motion to Quash on September 26, 2017 and denied reconsideration on December 21, 2017.
Roberto Rey E. Gabiosa, Sr. filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition in a Decision dated February 13, 2019 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 10, 2019.
The People of the Philippines elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

Key Factual Allegations

On January 20, 2017, Police Superintendent Leo Tayabas Ajero applied for a search warrant before Judge Arvin Sadiri B. Balagot based on an attached affidavit.
The attached affidavit was that of PO1 Rodolfo M. Geverola, who averred that intelligence received information that Roberto Rey Gabiosa Alias Jojo was selling methamphetamine hydrochloride at his house.
PO1 Geverola averred that surveillance and a controlled purchase occurred on the evening of January 18, 2017, in which an Action Agent bought a sachet of suspected shabu for PHP 1,000 from the target at the target's house.
The seized sachet was submitted to the Provincial Crime Laboratory Field Office and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride under Chemistry Report PC-D-004-2017 dated January 18, 2017.
Search Warrant No. 149-2017 was issued by Judge Balagot and was subsequently served on Roberto Rey E. Gabiosa, Sr.

Affidavit and Preliminary Examination

The supporting affidavit recited the informant tip, surveillance, identification of persons frequenting the house, the recruitment of an Action Agent, the test buy, and the laboratory confirmation of the seized sample.
Judge Balagot conducted an on-the-record preliminary examination of PO1 Rodolfo M. Geverola under oath, during which the witness described the test buy, the house, the sketch attached to the application, the make and color of the vehicle used, and the laboratory result.
The transcript of the examination shows the judge questioned the witness about his presence at the scene, the manner of the transaction, and the basis for the belief that the suspect remained in possession of illegal drugs.

Trial Court Rulings

The Regional Trial Court denied the Motion to Quash on the ground that the Constitution does not mandatorily require the judge to examine both the complainant and the witness if probable cause is established by the examination of one witness.
The RTC held that the manner or form of the judge's questions is not prescribed by rule and that a judge may elicit confirmations of the affidavit under oath rather than depart from the affidavit's content.
The RTC denied Gabiosa's motion for reconsideration and held that the judge satisfied himself personally that probable cause existed.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals set aside the RTC resolution and declared Search Warrant No. 149-2017 null and void on the ground that Section 2, Article III of the Constitution requires the issuing judge to examine personally both the c