PEOPLE VS ESTRADA
People vs Judge Estrada
FACTS:
A petition
for review was filed seeking the reversal of respondent Judge Estrada's order
that granted private respondent's motion to quash search warrant 958 as well as
the denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The pertinent facts of
the present case are as follows:
> Atty.
Cabanlas, Chief of the Legal, Information and Compliance Division (LICD) of
BFAD filed an application for the issuance of a search warrant against Aiden
Lanuza (private respondent) of 516 San Jose de la Montana Street, Mabolo, Cebu
City for violation of Article 40(k) of RA 7934 (The Consumer Act of the
Philippines). However, the application ended with a statement that the warrant
is to search the premises of another person at a different address (Belen
Cabanero at New Frontier
Village , Talisay, Cebu
- who happened to be the subject on whom another search was applied for by the
same applicant)
>Respondent
Judge issued search warrant 958 on June 27, 1995 which was served the next day.
The present petition stated that, during the search, the team discovered that
said address (516 xx) was actually a 5,000-meter compound containing at least
15 structures. The policemen proceeded to search the residence of private
respondent Lanuza at Lot 41 of said address.
Failure to find any drug products prompted the policemen to proceed to search a
nearby warehouse at Lot 38 which yielded 52
cartons of assorted drug products.
> On
August 22, 1995, private respondent Lanuza filed a motion to quash the search warrant
on the ground that the search warrant is illegal and null and void.
Respondent
judge granted Lanyza’s motion to quash the search warrant and denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Hence, the
present petition.
ISSUE: WON respondent judge erred in
granting Lanuza’s motion to quash Search Warrant 958.
Held:
There are,
however, two (2) serious grounds to quash the search warrant.
Firstly, we
cannot fault the respondent Judge for nullifying the search warrant as
she was not convinced that there was probable
cause for its issuance due to the
failure of the applicant to present documentary
proof indicating that private respondent Aiden Lanuza had no
license to sell drugs.
We hold
that to establish the existence of probable cause sufficient to justify the
issuance of a search warrant, the applicant must show "facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection
with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.
The facts
and circumstances that would show probable cause must be the best evidence that
could be obtained under the circumstances.
The introduction of such evidence is necessary especially in cases where
the issue is the existence or the negative ingredient of the offense charged —
for instance, the absence of a license required
by law, as in the present case — and such evidence is within the knowledge
and control of the applicant who could easily produce the same. But if the best
evidence could not be secured at the time
of application, the applicant must show a justifiable reason therefore during
the examination by the judge. The necessity of requiring stringent procedural
safeguards before a search warrant can be issued is to give meaning to the
constitutional right of a person to the privacy of his home and personalities.
In the case
at bar, the best evidence procurable under the circumstances to prove that
private respondent Aiden Lanuza had no
license to sell drugs is the certification to that effect from the Department
of Health. SPO4 Manuel Cabiles could have easily procured such certification
when he went to the BFAD to verify from
the registry of licensed persons or entity. No justifiable reason was
introduced why such certification could not be secured. Mere allegation as to
the non-existence of a license by private respondent is
not sufficient to establish probable cause for a search warrant.
Secondly,
the place sought to be searched had not been described with sufficient
particularity in the questioned search warrant,
considering that private respondent Aiden Lanuza's residence is actually located
at Lot No. 41, 516 San Jose de la Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City, while the
drugs sought to be seized were found in a warehouse
at Lot No. 38 within the same compound. The said warehouse is owned
by a different person.
This Court
has held that the applicant should particularly describe the place to be
searched and the person or things to be seized,
wherever and whenever it is feasible. 28 In the present case, it must be noted
that the application for search warrant was accompanied by a sketch 29 of the
compound at 516 San Jose de la
Montana St. Cebu City 516 San
Jose de la Montana St. Cebu City