Title
Re: Rolando EspiNo., Sr.
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-17-2494, RTJ-19-2557
Decision Date
Jan 26, 2021
A case involving the deaths of detainees Espinosa, Sr. and Yap during search warrant implementation, with judges investigated for procedural violations and delays in resolving detention transfer motions.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 223515)

Applications for Search Warrants and Implementation

On November 4, 2016, CIDG Region 8 applied ex parte for two search warrants before Judge Sabarre—one for a .45 pistol in Espinosa’s cell and one for shabu in co-accused Yap’s cell. Warrants were issued that afternoon, served in the early hours of November 5, and resulted in a firefight causing the deaths of Espinosa and Yap. Two other inmates died under similar circumstances during separate warrants issued by Judge Cabalona.

OCA’s Fact-Finding Investigation and Reports

The Supreme Court directed the OCA to investigate the issuance of these warrants, the delay in resolving Espinosa’s motion, and any collusion among judges, jail personnel, and CIDG. The OCA received anonymous letters alleging quid pro quo and improper conduct by Judges Sabarre and Cabalona. Two OCA reports (December 5, 2016; October 10, 2018) found no deliberate delay by Judge Arguelles but deemed the issuance of jail-search warrants as gross ignorance of the law warranting sanctions for Judges Sabarre and Cabalona.

Investigating Officer’s Findings and Recommendations

Appointed to report, Associate Justice Ingles agreed Espinosa’s motion posed no undue delay and recommended dismissal of the case against Judge Arguelles. He upheld that Judges Sabarre and Cabalona breached OCA Circular No. 88-2016 by failing to secure proper PNP endorsements for dangerous-drugs search warrants and proposed fines of P20,000 each with warnings.

Jurisdiction and Delay in Resolving the Urgent Motion

Under Rule 126, an urgent motion must be resolved with prudence and dispatch. The Court held that Judge Arguelles acted diligently—conducting hearings, ocular inspection, and probing security concerns. No bad faith or undue delay was found, as the ten-day interval before Espinosa’s death was not imputable to the judge’s actions. His conduct aligned with due process under the 1987 Constitution.

Authority to Issue Search Warrants in Detention Facilities

The Court recognized that the right against unreasonable searches applies even within penal institutions. Search warrants remain necessary when non-correctional officers seek to gather evidence for criminal prosecution. Application may lie with any court in the same judicial region for compelling reasons. Influence or alleged collusion within local jails may constitute such reasons, provided they are substantiated.

Distinction between Routine and Investigative Searches

Correctional officers may conduct routine searches without warrants to maintain security, as authorized by R.A. 7438 and BJMP rules. However, investigative searches by external law-enforcement agencies to seize evidence require compliance with Rule 126, including probable cause and magistrate examination, because they are not incidental to custodial authority but serve prosecutorial objectives.

Non-Compliance with OCA Circular No. 88-2016

OCA Circular No. 40-2016 requires search-warrant applications for drug offenses to be personally endorsed by the heads of specified agencies. Delegated endorsers are limited to key PNP officials under Circular No. 88-2016. Respondents Sabarre and Cabalona is


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.