Secretary of Justice vs. Marcos, 76 SCRA 701;
A.M. No. L-207-J, April
22, 1977
Nature: Administrative
complaint for gross inefficiency filed by Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad
Santos against the then respondent Judge Pio Marcos
Keywords: Issuance of
Warrant; Search and Seizure, Golden Buddha, Illegal Firearms, Baguio
FERNANDO, J.
Facts: On March 31, 1971,
Amansec went to Baguio and passed by a house at 47 Ledesma Street, Baguio; he
was attracted by the sight of several persons inside the house; he peeped from
outside the house and when the curtain was moved he saw a Buddha that was
inside the house; he observed what was going on inside the house and he heard
someone say that the golden Buddha was actually for sale and when he observed
them closer he overheard that it was being offered for sale for 100,000 pesos
by Rogelio Roxas; he saw the Buddha and firearms and some bullets inside the
house. By these facts, Colonel Calano requested for a warrant from J Marcos at
about 12 midnight on Apr 4, 1971. Due to the urgency he issued the warrant. And
eventually the golden Buddha and some firearms were seized from Roxas’s house.
Santos assailed the warrant averring that the search warrant was not limited to
one offense covering both illegal possession of firearms and violation of
Central Bank rules and regulations; that it did not particularly describe the
property to be seized; that he did not carefully examine under oath the
applicant and his witnesses; that articles not mentioned were taken; and that
thereafter the return and the inventory although appearing to have been
prepared on said date were not actually submitted to respondent Judge until
April 13, 1971 and the objects seized delivered only about a week later on
April 19.
Issue: Whether or not the
search warrant issued by Judge Marcos is valid.
Held: YES. The SC ruled in
favor Judge Marcos and had basically affirmed the decision of appellate Judge
Gatamaitan.
Ratio: Taking into
consideration to nature of “the articles so described, it is clear that no
other more adequate and detailed description could be given, particularly
because it is difficult to give a particular description of the contents
thereof, The description so made substantially complies with the legal
provisions because the officer of the law who executed the warrant was thereby
placed in a position enabling him to Identify the articles in question, which
he did,’ … so that here, since certainly, no one would be mistaken in
Identifying the Buddha, whose image is well known, and even the firearms and
ammunition because these were those without permit to possess, and all
located at 47 Ledesma St., Baguio City, so far as description was concerned,
the search warrant perhaps could not be said to have suffered fatal defects.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, the
administrative complaint for gross inefficiency against Judge Pio Marcos is
dismissed. Let a copy of this resolution be placed on his record.
Notes:
WHEN IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE UNREASONABLE?
> A search and seizure is unreasonable
if it is made
without a warrant, or the
warrant was invalidly issued.
> In all instances, what constitutes reasonable
or unreasonable search or
seizure is a purely judicial question determinable from a consideration of the
attendant circumstances.
WHAT
ARE THE THREE SITUATIONS
WHEREIN THERE MUST BE FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE?
1. Probable cause in filing of
an information
> Facts and circumstances that
would engender a well-grounded
belief that a
crime has been committed
and the person to be
charged is probably guilty thereof
2. Probable cause in the
issuance of a search warrant
> Facts and circumstances that
would lead a reasonable discreet and
prudent man to believe
that there has been a crime committed
and the things and objects connected to the crime committed are in the place to
be searched
3. Probable cause in the
issuance of a warrant of arrest
> Facts and circumstances that
would engender a well-grounded
belief that a
crime has been committed
and the person to be
arrested committed it
WHY
ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT MORE STRINGENT
THAN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST?
> The right against
unreasonable search and seizure is a core right implicit in the natural right
to life, liberty and property. Even in the absence of a constitution,
individuals have a fundamental and natural right against unreasonable search and seizure under natural law.
> Moreover, the violation of the right to privacy produces a
humiliating effect that cannot be rectified anymore.
> This is why there is
no other justification to speak of for a search, except for a warrant.
> On the other hand, in a warrant of arrest,
the person to be arrested can always post bail to prevent the deprivation
of liberty.
Sec. 2. Court where
application for search warrant shall be filed. – An application for search
warrant shall be filed with the following:
(a) Any court within whose
territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.
(b) For
compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial
region where the crime was committed if the place of
the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region
where the warrant shall be enforced.
However, if the
criminal action has already
been filed, the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending.
WHERE
SHOULD ONE FILE AN
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT?
> As a general rule,
any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed
BUT FOR COMPELLING REASONS
stated in the application, any court within the
judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of
the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant
shall be enforced.
> For example, a drug
syndicate keeps his drugs in a warehouse in Pasay for the reason that it has connections
in Pasay and can easily get a
tip when the police
officers will file for a search warrant. To avoid the drug syndicate from
getting a tip of the
impending search, the police officers apply for a search warrant in Makati
stating the compelling reason.
> However, if the criminal action has
already been filed, the application
shall only be made in the court
where the criminal action is pending.
Sec. 3. Personal
property to be seized. – A search warrant may be issued for the search and
seizure of personal property:
(a) Subject of the
offense;
(b) Stolen or
embezzled and other proceeds,
or fruits of the offense; or
(c) Used or
intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
WHAT MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF A SEARCH WARRANT?
1. Subject of the offense;
2. Stolen or embezzled and
other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
3. Used or intended
to be used as the means of
committing an offense.
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A VALID SEARCH WARRANT?
1. There must be
probable cause—facts and circumstances
that would engender a well-founded belief in a reasonable prudent and
discreet man that a crime has been committed and the things and objects to be
seized can be found in the place to be searched
2. Which must be determined by the judge personally through searching and probing questions—questions not merely answerable by yes or no but could be
answered by the applicant and the witnesses on facts personally known to them
3. (Upon whom?) The complainant and the
witnesses he may produce are
personally examined by the judge, in writing and
under oath and affirmation
4. (Based on what?) The applicant and the witnesses testify
on facts personally known to them
5. The probable cause must be
in connection with the specific offense
6. The warrant specified
describes the person and place to be searched and the things to be seized
7. The sworn statement
together with the affidavits of the witnesses must be attached to the record
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR THE PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION
OF THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED?
> The evident purpose
and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those,
and only those, particularly described in
the search warrant—to leave
officers of the law with no discretion regarding
what articles they should
seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and
seizures may not be committed, that abuses may not be
committed.
Sec. 5. 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
the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their
sworn statements, together
with the affidavits submitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment