You are on page 1of 2

Roan v.

Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687
Roan’s house was searched by virtue of a search warrant and the said search was
performed by military authorities. During their search, the authorities found a Colt
Magnum revolver and 18 live bullets which they confiscated and served as bases
for the charge of illegal possession of firearms. However, the application of said
search warrant was based on the accounts of two witnesses. The applicant did not
have personal knowledge of said firearm.
1. A search warrant was issued by respondent judge (Gonzales) on May 10,
1984. Application for the said search warrant was personally filed by PC
Capt. Mauro Quillosa. Together with Quillosa were two witnesses (Esmael
Morada and Jesus Tohilida), who presented to respondent judge their
respective affidavits. The application was not yet subscribed and sworn to, as
such respondent Judge proceeded to examine Quillosa on the contents of the
application to ascertain if he knew and understood the same. Afterwards,
Quillosa subscribed and swore the said application before respondent.
2. Petitioner’s (Josefino Roan) house was searched two days after the issuance
of the search warrant. The said search was performed by military authorities.
Despite none of the articles listed in the warrant was discovered, the officers
who conducted the search found one Colt Magnum revolver and 18 live
bullets which they confiscated. The said items served as bases for the
charge of illegal possession of firearms against the petitioner.
Issue: Whether or not a search warrant be annulled on the ground that it violates
the privacy of one person’s house
1. To be valid, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause to be
determined by the judge or some authorized officer after examining the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce. There must be a specific
description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized, to
prevent arbitrary and indiscriminate use of the warrant. Probable cause, as
described by Judge Escolin in Burgos v. Chief of Staff, refers to “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.” The
probable cause must refer to only one specific offense.
2. The applicant (Capt. Quillosa) was asking for the issuance of the search
warrant on the basis of mere hearsay and not of information personally
known to him as required by settled jurisprudence.

not merely routinary or pro-forma. The examining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application. Prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the search is valid. and (b) absent such a warrant. In this case. if the claimed probable cause is to be established. it was not because: (a) there was no valid search warrant. . In short. the military officers who entered the petitioner’s premises had no right to be there and therefore had no right to seize the pistol and bullets. 4.3. It is axiomatic that the magistrate must be probing and exhaustive. the right thereto was not validly waived by the petitioner.