PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP v ASUNCION

May 19, 1999 | Panganiban, J. | Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition | Search and Seizure

PETITIONER: Paper Industries Corp, officers therein
RESPONDENT: Judge Maximiano Asuncion, State Prosecutor Leo Dacera III, Special Operations Unit of the PNP

SUMMARY: Police Inspector Pascua applied for a search warrant, alleging that the management of Paper Industries Corp
was in possession of unlicensed high powered firearms. A joint deposition by 2 police officers, and a summary of
information and supplementary statements were presented before the judge. Only SPO3 Bacolod and the applicant appeared
before the court, and the judge issued a search warrant. SC held that the warrant was invalid because 1) the trial court failed
to examine the complainant and other deponents, 2) SPO3, who appeared at the hearing, had no personal knowledge that
petitioners were not licensed to possess the firearms, and 3) the place to be searched was not described with particularity.

DOCTRINE: 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.

FACTS:
1. On Jan. 25, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Pascua applied
for a search warrant before the said RTC of Quezon City,
alleging that the management of Paper Industries Corp,
located in the 155 hectare PICOP compound, is in
possession or has in its control high powered firearms,
ammunitions, and explosives. Attached to the application
were the 1) joint Deposition of SPO3 Bacolod and SPO2
Morito, and 2) a summary of the information and
supplementary statements of Enad and Moreno.
2. During the hearing, among the witnesses, only SPO3
Bacolod was presented and questioned by the judge, and
the participation of applicant Pascua in the hearing was
limited to introducing SPO3 Bacolod and even failed to
affirm his application. The judge nevertheless issued the
search warrant, finding probable cause for violation of
PD 1866, and several firearms and ammunitions were
seized, pursuant to the warrant.
3. Believing that the warrant was invalid and the search
unreasonable, the petitioners filed a Motion to Quash,
Supplemental Pleading to the Motion to Quash, and
Motion to Suppress Evidence, which the trial court all
denied. The corporation also filed a TRO, or an
injunction against the State Prosecutor, ordering him to
desist from proceeding with the investigation. The SC
granted the TRO in its Oct 23, 1995 Resolution.

ISSUE: WON the search warrant was valid NO

RULING: Petition GRANTED. Search warrant NULL and
VOID. The TRO issued by SC declared PERMANENT.

RATIO:
1. Article III, Sec 2: 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.
Summarily, 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.
2. In this case, the search warrant is invalid because:
a. The trial court failed to examine the complainant and
the other deponents: The absence of probing questions
and presentation of other witnesses show that the judge
relied mainly on the affidavits for the issuance of the
warrant. SC held that mere affidavits of are not
sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions
in writing and attach them to the record in order that
the Judge may be able to properly determine the
existence or non-existence of the probable cause, and to
hold the person giving it liable for perjury should it be
found later that his declarations are false.
b. SPO3 Bacolod, who appeared during the hearing, had
no personal knowledge that petitioners were not
licensed to possess the firearms: he alleged that they
merely gathered information from reliable sources.
c. The place to be searched was not described with
particularity: The Constitution and the Rules limit the
place to be searched only to those described in the
warrant. The warrant provided for search in
aforementioned premises but did not specify such
premises. 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. The place to be searched, as set out in the
warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the police.
3. Because the search warrant was procured in violation of
the Constitution and the Rules of Court, all firearms, and
materials seized are inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.