Case Summary (G.R. No. 226993)
Procedural History
Petitioners were charged with possession of drug paraphernalia and live ammunition after a June 24, 2015 warrant-authorized search of their residence, which yielded prohibited items. Upon discovering that the records of the judge’s examination of the applicant and witnesses were not in the court file, petitioners filed a Motion for Production of Records of Examinations under Rule 126. The trial court denied the motion to protect witness identities; the CA affirmed. Petitioners then sought certiorari relief before the Supreme Court, challenging the denial as grave abuse of discretion and infringement of their constitutional rights.
Search Warrant Issuance and Implementation
Judge Contreras issued Search Warrant No. 2015-45 based on the sworn statements of PO1 Bilaos and a confidential informant, finding “good and sufficient reasons” to believe petitioners possessed “undetermined volume of illegal drugs” in their residence. The warrant authorized day-and-night search of the person, premises, and seizure of contraband. Police executed the warrant and seized shabu, paraphernalia, and ten rounds of M-16 ammunition, leading to petitioners’ arrest and inquest.
Motion for Production of Search Warrant Records
Defense counsel moved to produce the transcript or affidavits of the applicant’s and witnesses’ examinations before the issuing judge, with redactions to protect identities. The prosecution agreed to produce redacted documents. The RTC denied the motion, asserting that the judge personally and exhaustively questioned the witnesses and that disclosure would endanger their safety. The court offered only to let petitioners view records from a distance without reading contents. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Rationale of the Trial Court and Court of Appeals
RTC: It performed a probing examination in compliance with constitutional requirements; production would jeopardize public welfare and witness safety.
CA: Deference to RTC’s factual finding of probable cause and to the judge’s personal examination. The CA held that deletion of names would not guarantee safety and that petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of regularity in official acts.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether the CA erred in upholding the denial of petitioners’ motion for production of search warrant supporting records, in violation of their right against unreasonable search and seizure and right to due process/information.
- Whether a temporary restraining order or injunction should have been issued to enjoin criminal proceedings.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Probable Cause Requirements
- Article III, Section 2 mandates that no warrant issue absent probable cause “determined personally by the judge after examination under oath” of the applicant and witnesses.
- Jurisprudence (Soliven v. Makasiar; Lim v. Felix; Ogayon v. People; People v. Tee; Allado v. Diokno; Ho v. People) requires a factual record of what the judge considered in making that determination. While depositions need not be attached, there must be evidence on record showing the testimony presented.
- The presumption of regularity in official acts is rebuttable by any record evidence of irregularity and cannot override the accused’s presumption of innocence or right to challenge probable cause.
Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure and Due Process
- Article III, Section 14 guarantees due process, right to be informed of evidence, and to meet witnesses.
- Denial of production of the judge’s examination records prevented petitioners from testing the factual basis for probable cause and impaired their right to prepare an intelligent defense.
- The offer to let petitioners view redacted records “from a certain distance” betrayed the trial court’s failure to comply with constitutional standards of transparency in warrant issuance.
Confidential Informants and Public Welfare vs. Accused’s Rights
- While witness identity protection may serve a compelling state interest, restrictions on fundamental rights trigger strict scrutiny. The State must show (i) a compelling interest, (ii) that the means chosen are narrowly tailored and the least restrictive.
- Here, the prosecution did not demonstrate that redaction alone would be insufficient; indeed, it consented to produce redacted records.
- Supreme Court noted the high potential for abuse in narcotics operations involving confidential informants and emphasized extra vigilance to safeguard accused’s rights.
Validity Requirements of Search Warrants
- A valid warrant must (1) be supported by probable cause, (2) have that cause determined personally by the judge, (3) include written, under-oath examinations of applicant and witnesses, (4) relate to facts personally known by the deponents, and (5) specifically describe the place and things to be seiz
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 226993)
Facts
- RTC Virac Branch 42 issued Search Warrant No. 2015-45 on June 24, 2015 for violation of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
- Based on testimony under oath of PO1 Domingo Bilaos and one confidential informant alleging possession of shabu at petitioners’ residence in Barangay Sta. Cruz, San Andres, Catanduanes
- Warrant implementation on the same day yielded drugs, drug paraphernalia, and ten live M-16 ammunition rounds
- Rafael and Cherryl were arrested and inquest prosecutors found probable cause to charge them under:
- RA 9165, Art. II, Sec. 12 (possession of drug paraphernalia)
- RA 10591, Sec. 28(g) (possession of ammunition)
Procedural History
- Petitioners moved for production of the records of the judge’s examinations of the applicant and witnesses (with redaction of identities)
- Prosecution agreed to redacted production
- RTC denied the Motion (Sept. 2, 2015), claiming:
- The judge conducted probing, exhaustive, personal examinations off‐record
- Disclosure risked informants’ safety; offered only distant viewing of the affidavits without reading
- Motion for reconsideration denied
- Court of Appeals (Aug. 31, 2016) denied petition for certiorari, upholding RTC’s protection of informants and deferring to the judge’s finding of probable cause
- Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court
Issues
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the RTC’s refusal to furnish the supporting records of Search Warrant No. 2015-45, pitting informant confidentiality against the accused’s due-process and public-information rights?
- Should injunctive relief have been issued to halt the criminal proceedings?
Applicable Legal Principles
- Constitutional guarantees (Art. III, Secs. 2 & 14):
- Presumption of innocence; right to due process; right to confront witnesses and obtain evidence in one’s favor
- Search warran