56

G.R. No. 44328. December 23, 1937

AGATON C. RODRIGUEZ and JUAN EVANGELISTA, Petitioners-Appellants, v. VICTOR D. VILLAMIEL

and ADOLFO N. FELICIANO, Respondents-Appellees.

FACTS

Respondent Victor Villamiel, a special agent of the Anti-Usury Board of the Department of
Justice, made two affidavits for the purpose of obtaining search warrants against Juan
Evangelista and Agaton Rodriguez as Usurers. Based on the affidavits executed, two search
warrants were issued by the Justice of Tayabas and with the orders directing Villamiel and his
colleagues to search the petitioners and seize the mentioned papers and documents. Hence, this
petition by appellants on the contention that the issued search warrants were null and void as it
was only based on the belief of the respondent on its assertion that there was probable cause to
believe that the documents and papers were related to the activities of the petitioners as usurers
and such seizure of papers and documents was illegal, therefore, it should be returned to them.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the issued search warrants were valid and the seizures of the papers and
documents of the petitioners are legal under the law..

HELD

No.

The affidavits, which served as the exclusive basis of the search warrants, are insufficient and
fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oaths were made and, therefore, it is
hereby held that the search warrants in question and the subsequent seizure of the documents
and papers are illegal and do not in any way warrant the deprivation to which the petitioners
were subjected.

Also, it was shown that the documents and papers had really been seized to enable the Anti-
Usury Board to conduct an investigation and later use all or some of them as evidence against
the petitioners in the criminal cases that may be brought against them. The seizure of books and
documents by means of a search warrant, for the purpose of using them as evidence in a criminal
case against the person in whose possession they were found, is unconstitutional because it
makes the warrant unreasonable, and it is equivalent to a violation of the constitutional provision
prohibiting the compulsion of an accused to testify against himself.

Therefore, it appearing that the documents and papers were seized for the purpose of fishing for
evidence to be used against the petitioners in the criminal proceedings for violation of the Anti-
Usury Law which might be instituted against them, it was held that the search warrants issued
are illegal and that the documents and papers should be returned to them.
57

G.R. No. 50720. March 26, 1984

SORIANO MATA, Petitioner, v. HON. JOSEPHINE K. BAYONA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of
the City Court of Ormoc, BERNARDO GOLES and REYNALDO MAYOTE, Respondents.

FACTS

An information against Petitioner Soriano Mata was filed alleging that he is offering, arranging
and taking bets on the Jai Alai game by selling illegal tickets (Masiao tickets) without any
authority from the Philippine Jai Alai and Amusement Corporation or from the government
authorities concerned. Petitioner claims that during the hearing of the case, he discovered that
nowhere from the records of the said case could be found the search warrant and other pertinent
papers connected to the issuance of the same, and when he inquired about its whereabouts from
the City Fiscal, respondent Judge replied that it was already with the court, handed the records
to which it was then attached.

Petitioner then filed for a motion to quash and annul the search warrant but it was denied by
respondent Judge stating the court has made a thorough investigation and examination; that in
fact the court made a certification to that effect; and that the fact that documents relating to the
search warrant were not attached immediately to the record of the criminal case is of no
moment, considering that the rule does not specify when these documents are to be attached to
the records. Mata also filed for a motion for consideration but was denied, thus, this petition to
declare the search warrant to be invalid and all the articles confiscated under such warrant as
inadmissible as evidence in the case, or in any proceedings on the matter.

ISSUE

Whether or not, a search warrant who failed to comply with the requisites under the Constitution
and in accordance of the Rules of Court be legal and valid, as issued by the respondent Judge in
this case.

HELD

No.

The search warrant is tainted with illegality for being violative of the Constitution and the Rules
of Court. Under the Constitution "no search warrant shall issue but upon probable cause to be
determined by the Judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce."
More emphatic and detailed is the implementing rule of the constitutional injunction, Section 4 of
Rule 126 which provides that the judge must before issuing the warrant personally examine on
oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their
depositions in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to
him.

Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. Therefore, the
search warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of the Judge to conform to the essential
requisites of taking the depositions in writing and attaching them to the record, rendering the
search warrant invalid.
58

G.R. No. L-64261 December 26, 1984

JOSE BURGOS, SR., JOSE BURGOS, JR., BAYANI SORIANO and J. BURGOS MEDIA SERVICES, INC.,
petitioners, vs. THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE CHIEF,
PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY COMMAND,
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Two search warrants were issued to the Metropolitan Mail and We Forum newspapers for the
alleged subversive activities in the business under the possession and control of petitioner Jose
Burgos Jr. The offices were searched and office and printing machines, equipment,
paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution
of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written
literature were also seized.

The petitioners prayed a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued for
the return of the seized articles and that respondents be enjoined from using the articles thus
seized as evidence against petitioners. Petitioners challenge the validity of the two search
warrants as it only indicates one and the same address, as well as if there exists a probable
cause in its issuance; and also, if the seizure done was in conformity with the law.

ISSUE

Whether or not, there exist probable cause for the two search warrants issued and the searches
done to be valid and legal.

HELD

Probable cause for a search is 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 the
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. And when
the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection
with the publication of subversive materials, the application and/or its supporting affidavits must
contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has
published or is intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice.

In mandating that "no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the
judge, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce; the Constitution requires no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his
witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified.

Furthers, Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, does not require that the property to be
seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. It may or
may not be owned by him. In fact, under subsection [b] of the above-quoted Section 2, one of
the properties that may be seized is stolen property. Necessarily, stolen property must be owned
by one other than the person in whose possession it may be at the time of the search and
seizure. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against
whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be seized, as
petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was alleged to have in relation to the articles and property seized
under the warrants.
59

G.R. No. 170425 April 23, 2012

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Petitioner, vs. RIZZA G. MENDOZA, CARLITO LEE, GRESHIELA G.
COMPENDIO, RAUL RIVERA, REY BELTRAN, REX ALMOJUELA, LINDA P. CAPALUNGAN, HILDA R.
RONQUILLO, MA. LODA CALMA, TERESITA P. ALMOJUELA, RUFINA ABAD and AMADOR A.
PASTRANA, Respondent.

FACTS

The National Bureau of Investigation applied with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City the
issuance of a search warrant covering documents and articles found at the offices of Amador
Pastrana and Rufina Abad. The court granted the application as the NBI alleged that such
documents and articles are being used in violation of Republic Act 8799 or the Securities
Regulation Code and commit estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

By virtue of the search warrant, the NBI and SEC agents searched the offices and seized the
described documents and articles. Shortly, a criminal complaint was filed against the herein
respondents for violation of Sections 24, 1 (b) (iii), 26, and 28 of the SRC. The respondents
Mendoza, et. al filed a petition for prohibition and injunction with application for temporary
restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction against the NBI and the SEC before the RTC of
Muntinlupa. They alleged that, three months after the search and seizure, the NBI and the SEC
had not turned over the seized articles to the Makati RTC that issued the search warrant. This
omission, they said, violated Section 1, Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which
required the officers who conducted the seizure to immediately turn over the seized items to the
issuing court.

The Muntinlupa petition sought to prevent the SEC and the NBI from using the seized articles in
prosecuting Mendoza, et al. and the DOJ from proceeding with the preliminary investigation of
their case, using the same. Pastrana and Abad, filed with the Makati RTC a motion to quash the
subject search warrant for having been issued in connection with several offenses when the
Rules of Criminal Procedure require its issuance for only one specific offense.

ISSUE

Whether or not, RTC Muntinlupa has jurisdiction to entertain respondents injunction action in
the suppression of evidence whose seizure had become illegal for failure of the SEC and NBI to
turn them over to the issuing court which is the RTC Makati.

HELD

No.

Section 14 of Rule 126 is clear in questioning both the issuance of the search warrant and the
suppression of evidence seized under it are matters that can be raised only with the issuing court
if, as in the present case, no criminal action has in the meantime been filed in court. Clearly,
although the search warrant in this case did not target the residence or offices of Mendoza, et al.,
they were entitled to file with the Makati RTC a motion to suppress the use of the seized items as
evidence against them for failure of the SEC and the NBI to immediately turn these over to the
issuing court. The issuing court is the right forum for such motion given that no criminal action
had as yet been filed against Mendoza, et al. in some other court.
Parenthetically, it appears from its investigation report that the SEC kept the seized documents
and articles for months rather than immediately turn them over to the Makati RTC. Justifying its
action, the SEC said that it still needed to study the seized items. Evidently, it wanted to use
them to build up a case against the respondents, unmindful of its duty to first turn them over to
the court. Clearly, SECs arbitrary action compromised the integrity of the seized documents and
articles. Also, the rules does not require Mendoza and others to be the parties to the search
warrant proceeding for them to file for a motion to suppress, as it is not correct to say that only
the parties to the application for search warrant can question its issuance or seek suppression of
evidence seized under it.

Therefore, the action for prohibition and injunction that herein respondents filed is hereby
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the same.