You are on page 1of 2

CYNTHIA D. NOLASCO, et. al. vs. HON.

ERNANI CRUZ PAO,


et. al.

G.R. No. L-69803 January 30, l987

Facts:
Issue:
A motion for reconsideration was submitted by the petitioners in
relation to the resolution on the Motions for Partial Reconsideration WON the search and seizure of the personalities made at Mila
where it was decreed that the search warrant issued by August 6, Aguilar-Roques residence was illegal and the property
1984 by respondent judge against petitioners are declared annulled aforementioned should be made as inadmissible evidence to the
and set aside and TRO enjoining the respondents from introducing petitioners criminal proceeding
evidence obtained effected by the said search warrants was made
permanent. However, the personalities seized by the Held: Yes.
Constabulary Security Group (CSG) may be retained for
possible introduction as evidence for the criminal The Court deferred to the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice
proceeding (rebellion) against one of the petitioners, Mila Teehankee on the earlier resolution in which there should be
Aguilar-Roque, who is a suspected high ranking officer of the absolute exclusion of all illegally obtained evidence. To iterate,
Communist Party of the Philippines. any evidence obtained in violation of Sec 3 Art IV of the
1973 Constitution shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
On August 6, 1984, at 11:00 AM, the petitioner mentioned was any proceeding.
arrested on board a public vehicle on the road away from and
outside of her dwelling at the intersection of Mayon Street and P. The search and seizure made in Milas dwelling could not be
Martial Street, Quezon City. Later on at 12NN, the CSG searched the deemed as incident to her arrest earlier on board a public
premises at 239-B Mayon Street, Quezon City (Milas residence) and vehicle on the road away from and outside of her dwelling.
seized 428 documents and written materials and a portable The pronouncement by the majority at that time, that as an
typewriter and 2 wooden boxes. incident to her arrest, her dwelling at 239-B Mayon Street
could be searched even without a warrant for evidence of
The Court declared the search warrant void being in a nature of a the charges of rebellion filed against her was contrary to the
general warrant which is a violation Section 3 Art IV of the 1973 constitutional prescription, as defined by law and
Constitution that guarantees the right of the people to be secure in jurisprudence. It was tantamount to sanctioning an untenable
their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable violation, if not nullification, of the basic constitutional right and
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. It guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
also specifically provides that no Search Warrant shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined by the Judge or such other This constitutional mandate expressly adopting the exclusionary
responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination rule has proved by historical experience to be the only practical
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched unreasonable searches and seizures by outlawing all evidence
and the things to be seized. The search warrant which authorizes illegally seized and thereby removing the incentive on the part of
the seizure of personal property was vaguely described and not state and police officers to disregard such basic rights. All the
particularized. articles thus seized fag under the exclusionary rule totally and
unqualifiedly and cannot be used against any of the three violations of their constitutional rights against unreasonable
petitioners. This is of special public importance and serves as a searches and seizures.
shield in the remote provinces and rural areas to the people who
have no access to courts for prompt and immediate relief from