Case Summary (G.R. No. 235348)
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
March 31, 2015: applications for search warrants filed and warrants issued and served; July 1, 2015: respondent filed motion to quash; August 14, 2015 and September 21, 2015: trial court denied motion and denied reconsideration; April 26, 2017 and October 11, 2017: Court of Appeals decision and resolution granting certiorari and nullifying warrants; Supreme Court review of the CA decision.
Charges and Items Seized
By virtue of the two warrants, police recovered suspected shabu in heat-sealed sachets, various drug paraphernalia, a .38 caliber revolver and live ammunition, mobile phones, laptop, cash, and other items. Criminal cases were docketed against Maderazo and co-accused for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, drug paraphernalia, and illegal possession of firearm.
Motion to Quash: Grounds Advanced by Respondent
Respondent argued that the search warrants lacked probable cause because P/Supt. Tolentino did not possess personal knowledge of the alleged criminal items and relied solely on statements by barangay officials who, in turn, relied on respondent’s alleged admission. Respondent also contended the claimed police surveillance and casing could not have occurred given his arrest earlier that morning and the cordoning off of the house, and that no transcript of the judge’s preliminary examination (TSN) existed; instead identically worded sworn statements were provided.
Trial Court Ruling and Court of Appeals Action
The trial court denied the motion to quash and subsequent reconsideration. The Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition for certiorari, finding grave abuse of discretion by the trial judge in the issuance of the warrants, and nullified and set aside Search Warrant Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015; it held that items seized pursuant to the void warrants were inadmissible.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Judge Leynes committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the orders denying the motion to quash the search warrants.
Applicable Constitutional and Procedural Law
The Supreme Court applied Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution governing searches and seizures, which mandates 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,” with particular description of the place and things to be seized. The Court also referenced Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 126 (2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure), which require the judge to personally examine complainant and witnesses “in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath” and to attach their sworn statements and affidavits.
Standard for Judicial Examination and Probable Cause
The Court reiterated that the judge’s determination of probable cause is a personal task requiring a probing, exhaustive, and searching examination of the complainant and witnesses, not a mere rote repetition of affidavit averments. The questioning must probe the witnesses’ personal knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe an offense was committed and that the objects sought are in the place to be searched.
Analysis of the Preliminary Examinations
The Court examined the preliminary examinations of barangay witnesses Roco and Rivera and found identical, rote questions and answers. The questioning contained only three fact-related queries that reflected admissions attributed to Maderazo rather than facts personally observed by the witnesses. The Court found no probing inquiry into how the witnesses acquired their knowledge, whether they personally saw the contraband or firearm, how the alleged admission was elicited, or details about surveillance purportedly conducted by police.
Hearsay, Lack of Personal Knowledge, and Verification Failure
The Court concluded that Tolentino’s application and the witnesses’ testimonies were premised on hearsay—chiefly respondent’s alleged admission—and lacked the requisite personal knowledge by the applicant and witnesses. Tolentino’s asserted “casing and surveillance” were unsubstantiated as to time and manner. The Court emphasized that hearsay evidence, unvalidated by follow-up investigation establishing personal knowledge, is inadequate to establish probable cause for a search warrant.
Specific Considerations Regarding Firearm Possession Warrant
For the firearm-related warrant, the Court stressed that probable cause must show both the existence of the fi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 235348)
Nature of the Case and Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed before the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated April 26, 2017 and Resolution dated October 11, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 143187.
- The CA granted respondent Stanley Maderazo’s petition for certiorari, nullified and set aside Search Warrant Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015, and held that items seized by virtue of those warrants are inadmissible against him.
- The Office of the Solicitor General (petitioner) brought the case to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA decision; the Supreme Court issued a Decision dated December 10, 2018 (Peralta, J.).
Key Parties and Actors
- Petitioner: People of the Philippines (represented by the Office of the Solicitor General).
- Respondent/Accused: Stanley Maderazo y Romero (Maderazo).
- Other persons named in initial applications and proceedings: Nestor Alea, Daren Mabansag, Lovely Joy Alcantara (co-accused in search warrant applications); Police Superintendent Jaycees De Sagun Tolentino (applicant for search warrants); barangay officials Loida Tapere Roco and Rexcel Lozano Rivera (informants/witnesses); Sally Cueto (caretaker of premises); Executive Judge Tomas C. Leynes (Judge Leynes) of the Regional Trial Court, Calapan City, Branch 40.
- Justices concurring in the Supreme Court decision: Leonen, Gesmundo, Reyes, Jr., and Hernando, JJ.
Facts as Found in the Record
- On March 31, 2015, PSupt. Jaycees De Sagun Tolentino filed two separate applications for search warrants before the Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Branch 40, against Maderazo and others, alleging possession of dangerous drugs, drug paraphernalia, firearms and ammunition at Maderazo’s residence in Barangay Lazareto, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro.
- Tolentino alleged he was informed by barangay officials Loida Tapere Roco and Rexcel Lozano Rivera that Maderazo admitted to keeping approximately 40 grams of illegal drugs, paraphernalia, and a firearm in the rented house; Tolentino also alleged he verified information through casing and surveillance, but gave no specifics as to when or how.
- On March 31, 2015, Judge Leynes issued Search Warrant No. 09-2015 (for violation of R.A. No. 9165) and Search Warrant No. 10-2015 (for violation of R.A. No. 10591). The same date, the warrants were served and police recovered heat-sealed sachets suspected to contain shabu, drug paraphernalia, a .38 caliber revolver, live ammunition, mobile phones, a laptop, cash, among others.
- Criminal cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. CR-15-12-201, CR-15-12-202, and CR-15-12-203 charging Maderazo, Alea, and Mabansag respectively with illegal possession of dangerous drugs/drug paraphernalia and illegal possession of firearm.
Motion to Quash, Proceedings and Trial Court Rulings
- On July 1, 2015, Maderazo filed a Motion to Quash asserting Search Warrant Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015 were issued without probable cause and that items seized were inadmissible; he argued Tolentino lacked personal knowledge and only relied on statements of Roco and Rivera, and that alleged casing/surveillance could not have occurred because Maderazo was already in custody and the house was cordoned off.
- Maderazo requested certified true copies of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of the proceedings on March 31, 2015; instead he received copies of sworn statements of Roco, Rivera and Cueto which bore identical questions and answers except for personal circumstances.
- On August 14, 2015, the trial court denied the Motion to Quash for lack of merit. Reconsideration was denied on September 21, 2015.
Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals and CA Ruling
- Maderazo filed a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the trial court in denying the Motion to Quash.
- On April 26, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, nullified and set aside Search Warrant Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015, and held that items seized under the void warrants were inadmissible against Maderazo.
- The CA also issued a Resolution dated October 11, 2017 in the same matter.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Judge Leynes committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the trial court Orders dated August 14, 2015 and September 21, 2015 denying Maderazo’s Motion to Quash the subject search warrants.
- Whether there was probable cause for issuance of Search Warrant Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015 and whether Judge Leynes personally examined PSupt. Tolentino and witnesses by searching questions and answers as required.
Governing Constitutional and Rule Provisions Cited
- Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution: Right against unreasonable searches and seizures; search warrants shall issue only 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, particularly describing the place to be