Case Summary (G.R. No. 71410)
Factual Background of the Search and Seizure
A search warrant issued May 10, 1984, authorized entry into petitioner’s residence for specified items. The search on May 12 yielded none of the listed articles but resulted in the confiscation of a Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets. These items formed the basis of charges for illegal possession of firearms.
Legal Standards for Valid Search Warrants
Validity hinges on probable cause established through personal examination under oath of the applicant and witnesses, and the warrant’s specificity to prevent arbitrary searches. Probable cause requires facts leading a prudent person to believe an offense was committed and that evidence related to it lies within the premises to be searched.
Probable Cause and Specificity Requirements
Prior jurisprudence holds probable cause must concern a single offense. A warrant must identify the place and items with precision to forestall indiscriminate or general searches.
Constitutional Convention and Oath Requirement
The 1934 Constitutional Convention added the mandate for an oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses. Although not mirrored in the U.S. Constitution, this safeguard was present in local procedural law, reinforcing protection against unconstitutional searches.
Rule 126’s Deposition Requirement
Rule 126, Section 4, required the examining judge to record in writing depositions of the complainant and witnesses, attach them to the warrant application, and thereby furnish a basis for perjury prosecution if testimony proved false.
Failure to Acquire Written Deposition from Complainant
Although depositions of the two witnesses were on record, the judge did not take nor attach a written deposition of the applicant (Captain Quillosa). Instead, he merely queried the applicant about the affidavit’s contents prior to its formal execution—insufficient under Rule 126.
Judicial Examination and Mata v. Bayona Standard
In Mata v. Bayona, the Court held that mere affidavits are inadequate; the examining magistrate must take and retain written depositions of all deponents to determine probable cause and deter perjury. The absence of such deposition rendered the warrant fatally defective.
Reliance on Hearsay and Inadequate Inquiry
The judge’s inquiry was limited to confirming that the applicant understood his own affidavit, without probing the substance or independent knowledge of the applicant. The witnesses’ depositions largely parroted their affidavits and went untested by meaningful questioning—e.g., how they could positively identify calibers through a closed window or remain undetected while observing illicit activity.
Coercion and Invalid Waiver of the Warrant
Respondents argued that petitioner waived the warrant’s defects by signing a written consent to the search. The Court found this “waiver” was effectively coerced by armed military presence and presumed judicial authority, not a voluntary relinquishment of constitutional rights.
Illegally Seized Items and Warrant Exceptions
Respondents contended the seized revolver and bullets were malum prohibitum and thus subject to warrantless seizure. The Court rejected this, holding that prohibited items are not per se excl
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 71410)
Facts of the Case
- On May 10, 1984, Presiding Judge Romulo T. Gonzales of the Regional Trial Court of Marinduque, Branch XXXVIII, issued Search Warrant No. 1-84 upon application by PC Capt. Mauro P. Quillosa.
- Two days later, military authorities executed the warrant at petitioner Josefino Roan’s residence.
- The warrant listed specified articles, none of which were found during the search.
- Officers nonetheless discovered and seized one Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets, which formed the basis of Roan’s prosecution for illegal possession of firearms.
- Roan challenged the constitutionality of the warrant and sought exclusion of the seized items; a temporary restraining order was granted and later made permanent.
Constitutional and Legal Provisions
- Article IV, Section 3, 1973 Constitution guarantees security against unreasonable searches and seizures and mandates that warrants issue only upon probable cause, under oath, and particularly describing place and items.
- Article IV, Section 4 protects the privacy of communication and correspondence and bars evidence obtained in violation of Sections 3 or 4 as inadmissible.
- Rule 126, Section 3–4 of the Rules of Court implements the constitutional requirement, prescribing examination under oath of the complainant and witnesses, with written depositions attached to the record.
Probable Cause and Requirements for Valid Search Warrants
- Probable cause must be based on facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe an offense has been committed and that the objects sought are at the place to be searched.
- It must refer to a single specific offense.
- The judge must determine probable cause after personal examination under oath of the complainant and any produced witnesses.
- The application must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized to prevent arbitrary use.
Examination Under Oath and Written Depositions
- Delegate Vicente J. Francisco’s 1934 Constitutional Convention proposal strengthened the guar