G.R. No. 81756
October 21, 1991
Facts
This is an action for certiorari which seeks to nullify Search Warrant No. 1 issued by respondent Judge Ontal and to return the seized money amounting to P1,231.
The police officers filed an “Application for Search Warrant” accompanied by a “Deposition of Witnesses.” Acting on such application, Judge Ontal issued Search Warrant No 1 directing the aforesaid police officers to search the room of Marlon Silva in the residence of Nicomedes Silva for violation of Republic Act No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The search warrant provides that there is probable cause to believe that possession and control of Marijuana dried leaves and/or cigarettes in Tama’s room. Moreover, it ordered the seizure of said objects.
However, the police officer also seized a sum of money which was not indicated in the search warrant. With that, respondent filed a motion to recover the sum of money which was dismissed by Judge Ontal.
The petitioners then filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant No. 1 on the grounds that (1) it was issued on the sole basis of a mimeographed “Application for Search Warrant” and “Deposition of Witness”, which were accomplished by merely filling in the blanks and (2) the judge failed to personally examine the complainant and witnesses by searching questions and answers in violation of Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. However, Judge Cruz who replaced Judge Ontal denied said motion. Hence this petition.
Issue
Whether or not Search Warrant No 1 is constitutional?
Held
No. Under Section 2, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution, unreasonable search and seizure are prohibited. Moreover, Section 3 Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provide for the requisite of issuing search warrant such as the (1) personal determination of the judge of the probable cause upon examination of complainant and witnesses, and the (2) description of the place and thing to be seized.
Moreover, Section 4 of the said rule provides that the determination of probable cause must be based on personal examination in the form of searching questions and answers.
In addition, “[t]he ‘probable cause’ for a valid search warrant, has been defined ‘as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched’. This probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay.” (Prudente v. Dayrit)
In this case, Judge Ontal failed to comply with the legal requirement that he must first examine the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers in order to determine the existence of probable cause. This is so because the Application for Search Warrant and the Deposition of Witness contained suggestive questions answerable by merely placing yes or no in the blanks provided with only 4 questions asked. Additionally, the questions were broad, the deposition was mimeographed, and all the witness had to do is to fill in their answers on the blanks provided.
Hence, Search Warrant No 1 is unconstitutional.