REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH IX
BALAYAN, BATANGAS

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8506

REY NINO PESIGAN y GOMEZ,

Accused.
X--------------------------X

MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT AND/OR

TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Accused, by counsel, respectfully states, that:

1. A search warrant was issued against the accused Rey Nino
Pesigan y Gomez for Violation of R.A. 10591 (Comprehensive
Law on Firearms and Ammunitions) by Judge Agripino Morga of
the San Pablo City, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29-32.

2. On July 31, 2017, the accused requested to secure a copy of all

the documents submitted by the police officers in support of the
application and he likewise asked for the copies of the transcript
of the stenograpic notes taken in support of said application.

3. The accused is submitting to the Honorable Court the

documents pertaining to the issued Search Warrant namely:

a. Transcript of stenographic notes (Annex A)

b. Order of the Court granting the application for Search
Warrant (Annex B)
c. Application for Search Warrant (Annex C)
d. House Sketch of the Accused (Annex D)
e. Verification Report (Annex E)
f. Photocopy of the photographs submitted by the applicants
of the Search Warrant (Annex F)

4. The issuance of the Search Warrant against the accused is null

and void and hence warrants the quashal thereof due to the
following grounds:

a. The issuance of the Search Warrant is not anchored on

probable cause and the issuing Judge did not take the
deposition of the applicant as required by the Rules of Court.
 b. There is no compelling reason which would necessitate or
justify the issuance of a search warrant by a court which has
no territorial jurisdiction over the place to be searched; and

The issuance of the Search Warrant

is not anchored on Probable Cause
and the issuing Judge did not take
the deposition of the applicant as
required by the Rules of Court.

5. The fundamental right against unreasonable and searches and

seizures and the basic conditions for the issuance of a search
warrant are laid down in Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized. (Emphasis supplied)

6. Consistent with the foregoing constitutional provision, Section 3

and 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, 24 detail the requisites for
the issuance of a valid search warrant as follows:

Sec. 3. Requisite for issuing search warrant. A search warrant shall

not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific
offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
things to be seized.

Sec. 4. Examination of complainant; record. The judge must, before

issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under oath the complainant and
any witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and
attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavits
submitted.

7. More simply stated, the requisites of a valid search warrant 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.

8. Given the foregoing premises, it is evident that the Search

Warrants were not issued based on probable cause considering
that the facts and circumstances that surround the issuance
thereof were not within the personal knowledge of the
applicant.
 9. Like for instance, in the Application for Search Warrant executed
by PCI Jose Ostonal Naparato, Jr., he stated therein that he was
informed that the accused "has in his control and possession" of
the undetermined number of unlicensed short firearms and
assorted ammunitions, and that he "has verified the report and
found it to be a fact." On the other hand, two witnesses in the
persons of PO1 Reyvel Quiroz Noche and PO1 Eleizer Serrano
Magsumbol, declared that residents of Brgy. Madalunot, Calaca
Batangas informed them that the accused allegedly fired his
guns in the said barangay and usually threatened the residents
therein. Moreover, said witnesses likewise stated that they
conducted surveillance and casing operations and as a result
thereof, they were informed by the neighbor of the accused
that the latter is always firing his gun and pointing the same to
others whenever he is drunk. With the foregoing, it is clear and
evident that the applicant and his witness had no personal
knowledge of the facts and circumstances which became the
basis for issuing the questioned search warrant, but acquired
knowledge thereof only through information from other sources
or persons who failed to execute their affidavits and whose
names and identities were not disclosed.

10. While it is true that in the application for search warrant,

applicant PCI Jose Ostonal Naparato, Jr., stated that he verified
the report or information he had earlier received, there is nothing
in the record to show or indicate how and when said applicant
verified the earlier information acquired by him as to justify his
conclusion that he found such information to be a fact. He might
have clarified this point if there had been searching questions
and answers, but there were none. In fact, the issuing Judge did
not able to propound searching questions upon him for an
unknown reason but only to PO1 Noche and PO1 Magsumbol;

The issuing Judge did not

take the deposition of the applicant
and failed to personally examine the latter
in the form of searching questions and answers

11. The accused requested to secure a copy for all the documents
submitted by the police officers in support of the application
and copies of the transcript of the stenograpic notes taken,
however, the Clerk of Court of San Pablo City, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 29-32 failed to furnish him the searching questions
of the Judge and answer thereto given by the applicant PCI
Jose Ostonal Naparato Jr., as well as the sworn statements and
affidavits of the complainants and his witnesses. The fact that
they were not furnished to the accused only goes to show that
the said documents do not exist in the records.

12. Moreover, considering that the applicant was not subjected to

searching questions and the latter together with his witnesses did
not submit their affidavits or sworn statements when they applied
for the Search Warrant, the counsel for the accused believes
that there is no sufficient testimonial evidence in support of the
 application, and there are no established facts which will serve
as the basis for the issuance of search warrant.

13. With the foregoing, it is clear that the issuance of the Search
Warrant against the accused is tainted with serious irregularity
and violation of the Rules of Court.

There is no compelling reason which

would necessitate or justify the
issuance of a search warrant by
a court which has no territorial jurisdiction
over the place to be searched

14. The accused submits that the compelling reason stated in the
Application did not measure with what is required under the
Rules of Court. A careful perusal of the application for the
Search Warrant would show that the applicant alleged that
leakage can be possible considering that the accused has
connections and acquaintances in the court close to his
residence and by reason thereof, he was compelled to apply
before the issuing Judge of Regional Trial Court of Branch 29-32
of San Pablo City instead in the Regional Trial Court of Balayan
City.

15. Assuming arguendo that the accused has connections and

acquaintances in the court close to his relatives, the applicant
failed to present proof that such connections or acquaintances
might open to the possibility of leakage once the Search
Warrant is applied before the Regional Trial Court of Balayan
City.

16. The applicant also failed to show in their application for search
warrant that the accused is an influential person in the said court
or even failed to identify or name his relatives who work in the
said court who could leak the information that would be given
by the applicant.

17. Evidently, the compelling reason given by the applicant is just

based on conjectures and suppositions and not based on facts.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed before

this Honorable Court, that the search warrants issued against the
accused dated July 7, 2017 issued by Hon. Agripino Morga, Executive
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, City of San Pablo be quashed and
the evidence obtained as a result of the issuance of said search
warrant be declared as inadmissible in evidence and the information
filed against the accused be quashed.

Balayan, Batangas, July 28, 2017.

 PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE
DOJ-Balayan District Office
Hall of Justice
Balayan, Batangas

By:

MERLO VINIA C. SILVA

Public Attorney I

The Clerk of Court

Regional Trial Court
Branch IX, Balayan Batangas

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration of the

Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

MERLO VINIA C. SILVA

CC:

Office of the Public Prosecutor

Balayan, Batangas