PICOP vs. Asuncion
Facts:
On January
25, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Napoleon B. Pascua applied for a search
warrant before the Quezon City RTC, stating:
1. The
management of PICOP located at PICOP compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig, Surigao
del Sur, represented by its Sr. Vice President Ricardo G. Santiago, is in
possession or has in its control high powered firearms, ammunitions,
explosives, which are the subject of the offense, or used or intended to be
used in committing the offense, and which … are being kept and concealed in the
premises described.
2. That the
Search Warrant should be issued to enable any agent of the law to take
possession and bring to this Honorable Court the following described
properties:
a. 70 M16
Armalite rifles cal. 5.56
b. 10 M16 US
rifles
c. 2 AK-47
rifles
d. 2 UZI
submachine guns
e. 2 M203
Grenade Launchers cal. 40mm
f. 10 cal. 45
pistols
g. 10 cal. 38
revolvers
h. 2
ammunition reloading machines
i. Assorted
ammunitions for said calibers of firearms
j. 10 hand
grenades
After
propounding several questions to SPO3 Bacolod, Judge Asuncion issued the
contested search warrant.
Issue:
Whether or
not the search warrant issued by Judge Asuncion complied with the requisites
for a valid issuance.
Held:
Sections 3
& 4 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provide in detail the requisites for
the valid issuance of search warrants. The requisites are: (1) probable cause
is present; (2) such presence is determined personally by the judge; (3) the
complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by
the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation; (4) the applicant and the
witnesses testify on facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant
specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.
In the
present case, the search warrant is INVALID because (1) the trial court failed
to examine personally the complainant and the other deponents; (2) SPO3 Bacolod
had no personal knowledge that the petitioners were not licensed to possess the
subject firearms; and (3) the place to be searched was not described with
particularity.
Chief
Inspector Pascua was asked was not asked nor said anything more in his
application. He even failed to affirm it. The trial judge failed to propound
questions, let alone probing questions. Judge Asuncion heavily relied on their
affidavits. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are not
sufficient. It is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and
exhaustive, not merely routinary or pro-forma. The judge must not simply rehash
the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and
justification of the application.
SPO3
Bacolod appeared during the hearing and was extensively examined by the judge.
However, his testimony showed that he did not have personal knowledge that the
petitioners were not licensed to possess firearms, ammunitions or explosives in
violation of PD 1866.
Lastly, the
search warrant failed to describe particularly the place to be searched. It
merely authorized the search of the aforementioned premises. The warrant thus
gives the police officers unbridled and thus illegal authority to search all
the structures found inside the PICOP compound. The particularization of the
description of the place to be searched may properly be done only by the judge,
and only in the warrant itself; it cannot be left to the discretion of the
police officers conducting the search.
Since the
evidences are illegally obtained, they are deemed inadmissible in Court.