You are on page 1of 2

Topic: Search and Seizure > Types > Through Search before him.

Warrant > Requisites for Issuance > Determining  Two days later, Josefino Roan’s house was searched but none of the
Probable Cause > Process articles listed in the warrant was discovered.
o However, the officers who conducted the search found in the
Case No.: G.R. No. 71410. November 25, 1986.
premises one Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets
Case Name: Roan v Gonzales which they confiscated.
o They are now the bases of the charge against the petitioner.
Full Case Name: JOSEFINO S. ROAN, petitioner, vs. THE
1. Whether the Respondent Judge failed to comply with the proper
procedure in issuing the search warrant.

Ponente: Cruz, J. YES. The inclusion of the requirement for the "examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce" was a
Doctrine: The examination must be probing and exhaustive, not
refinement proposed by Delegate Vicente J. Francisco in the1934
merely routinary or pro-forma, if the claimed
Constitutional Convention for the purpose of strengthening of the guaranty
probable cause is to be established. The examining
against unreasonable searches and seizures.
magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the
affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent Implementing this requirement, the Rules of Court provided in what was then
and justification of the application. Rule 126:

. SEC. 4. Examination of the applicant. — The municipal or city 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
 May 10, 1984 – the search warrant in question was issued by the Judge writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented
Romulo Gonzales. to him.
o The application for the said search warrant was personally
By Judge Gonzalez’s own account, what he did was question Captain Quillosa
filed by PC Capt. Mauro Quillosa. There were two witnesses,
on the contents of his affidavit only "to ascertain, among others, if he knew
Esmael Morada and Jesus Tohilida, who presented to
and understood the same," and only because "the application was not yet
respondent judge their respective affidavits taken by police
investigator Pat. Josue V. Lining. subscribed and swom to." The suggestion is that he would not have asked any
o At the time of application, the application was not yet questions at all if the affidavit had already been completed when it was
subscribed and sworn to. Judge Gonzales proceeded to submitted to him. In any case, he did not ask his own searching questions. He
examine Captain Quillosa on the contents of the affidavits to limited himself to the contents of the affidavit. He did not take the applicant's
ascertain, among others, if he knew and understood the same. deposition in writing and attach them to the record, together with the affidavit
o Afterwards, Quillosa subscribed and swore to the same presented to him.

Instead. in the full view of the witnesses. 1-84 issued by the respondent judge on ." shows that they were in the main a mere restatement of their allegations in their affidavits. is hereby declared null and void and accordingly set aside. No costs. In this case. SO ORDERED. In short. the meaningful remark made by Tohilida that they were suspicious of the petitioner because he was a follower of the opposition candidate in the forthcoming election did not excite the respondent judge's own suspicions. One may well wonder why it did not occur to the respondent judge to ask how the witness could be so certain even as to the caliber of the guns. except that they were made in the form of answers to the questions put to them by the respondent judge. 1984. or if the acts related were really done openly.It is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive. not May 10. if the claimed probable cause is to be Our restraining order of August 6. Significantly. These would have been judicious questions but they were injudiciously omitted. who both claimed to be "intelligence informers. Search Warrant No. or why his presence was not noticed at all.1985. considering that these acts were against the law. or whether it was on the first floor or a second floor. DISPOSITIVE WHEREFORE. is made permanent. 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. it was not because there was no valid search warrant and absent of such warrant. or how far he was from the window. established. This should have put him on guard as to the motivations of the witnesses and alerted him to possible misrepresentations from them. The above-discussed defects have rendered the search warrant invalid. 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. merely routinary or pro-forma. the declarations of the witnesses were readily accepted and the search warrant sought was issued forthwith. Prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the search is valid. A study of the depositions taken from witnesses Esmael Morada and Jesus NO SEPARATE OPINION Tohilida. the right thereto was not validly waived by the petitioner.