You are on page 1of 2

1. Nolasco vs.

Pano
132 SCRA 152 (1985)/147 SCRA 509 (1987)
By: Ced
Topic: SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Issue: Whether or not the search warrant issued was of general warrant and illegal?
Petitioners: CYNTHIA D. NOLASCO, MILA AGUILAR-ROQUE and WILLIE C.
TOLENTINO Ruling: NO. The search warrant is of General, thus, it was hereby annulled by set aside.
Respondents: HON. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City; HON. ANTONIO P. SANTOS, Presiding Judge, Branch XLII,  The items enumerated in the search warrant were vaguely described and not
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City: HON. SERGIO F. APOSTOL, City Fiscal, particularized. There is absent a definite guideline to the searching team as to
Quezon City; HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, LT. GEN. FIDEL RAMOS and COL. JESUS what items might be lawfully seized this giving the officers of the law discretion
ALTUNA regarding what articles they should seize. Therefore, it is in the nature of a general
Ponente: MELENCIO-HERRERA, J. warrant and thus infringes the constitutional mandate requiring particular
description of the things to be seized.
FACTS:  Notwithstanding the irregular issuance of the search warrant and although,
ordinarily, the articles seized under an invalid search should be returned, they
 One of the petitioners (Aguilar-Roque) was accused of the Rebellion of Military cannot be ordered returned in the case at bar, for some searches may be made
Commission No. 25. She was arrested on August 6, 1984, 11:30 AM by a without warrant. As declared in Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, a
Constabulary Security Group (CSG). Arrested with Roque was Nolasco. 30 minutes person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or
later, elements of the CSG searched the premises at 239-B Mayon St., Quezon City. anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the crime. Said
During the said search, one of the petitioners Tolentino, who was the person in- provision is confined to search, without a search warrant of a person who had been
charge of the premises, was arrested. 428 documents and written materials were arrested. It is also a general rule that, as an incident of an arrest, the place or
seized, together with a portable typewriter and 2 wooden boxes. premises where the arrest was made can also be searched without a search
warrant. In the latter case, “the extent and reasonableness of the search must be
 Three hours prior to the search, Lt. Col. Virgilio G. Saldajeno of the CSG applied for decided on its own facts and circumstances, and it has been stated that, in the
a search warrant from Judge Paño to be served on 239-B Mayon St., Quezon City. application of general rules, there is some confusion in the decisions as to what
Said place was determined to be the leased residence of Aguilar-Roque after constitutes the extent of the place or premises which may be searched. What must
almost a month of “round the clock surveillance.” Said warrant was issued in be considered is the balancing of the individual’s right to privacy and the public’s
proceedings entiled “PP v. Mila Aguilar-Roque, Accused, Search Warrant No. 80-84 interest in the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals.”
for rebellion.” This is known to be the Search Warrant Case.  Roque –charged with rebellion which is a crime against public order, a warrant for
her arrest had not been served for a considerable period of time, arrested within
 Nolasco, Aguilar-Roque and Tolentino wre charged for subversion/rebellion and/or
the general vicinity of her dwelling, and search of her dwelling was made within a
conspiracy to commit rebellion/subversion.
half hour of her arrest – did not need a search warrant for the possible effective
results in the interest of public order.
 Petitioners, on December 12, prayed in a Motion to Suppress filed with MTC Judge
Santos that the items (total of 431) be returned to them. Such motion was denied
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
by Judge Santos on the ground that the validity of the Search Warrant had to be
litigated in the Search Warrant Case.
WHEREFORE, while Search Warrant No. 80-84 issued on August 6, 1984 by
 Petitioners assert that the search warrant is void because it is a general warrant respondent Executive Judge Ernani Cruz Paño is hereby annulled and set aside, and
since it did not sufficiently describe with particularity the things subject of the the Temporary Restraining Order enjoining respondent from introducing evidence
search and seizure and that probable cause had not been properly established for obtained pursuant to the Search Warrant in the Subversive Documents case hereby
lack of searching questions. made permanent, the, personalities seized may be retained by the Constabulary
Security Group for possible introduction as evidence in Criminal Case No. SMC-1-1,
pending before Special Military commission No. 1, without prejudice to petitioner
Mila Aguilar-Roque objecting to their relevance and asking said Commission to
return to her any and all irrelevant documents and articles.

Motion for Reconsideration / January 30, 1987

Facts:

 The case at bar is a question on the validity of the search warrant and arrest of the
petitioner charged for the crime of rebellion. The CA decision holds the search
warrant as null and void but the articles seized shall be retained. Petitioners
contend that a lawful search would only be justified by a lawful arrest therefore
with the court ruling that the arrest was illegal the articles seized should also be
returned to them. Respondents assert that although the search warrant was null
and void the arrest was not.

Issue: WON the personalities that were seized by an illegal search warrant should
be returned.

Ruling:

Yes, it should be returned.

 The court used the dissenting opinion of Justice Teehankee invoking the
Constitutional provision from the Bill of Rights that mandates the right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures. Any evidence obtained in violation of this
Constitutional mandate shall be inadmissible for any purpose or proceedings.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

ACCORDINGLY, considering the respective positions now taken by the parties,


petitioners’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of this Court’s Decision of October
8, 1985 is GRANTED, and the dispositive portion thereof is hereby revised to read
as follows:

WHEREFORE, Search Warrant No. 80-84 issued on August 6, 1984 by respondent


Executive Judge Ernani Cruz Paño is hereby annulled and set aside, and the
Temporary Restraining Order enjoining respondents from introducing evidence
obtained pursuant to the Search Warrant in the Subversive Documents Case
hereby made permanent. The personalities seized by virtue of the illegal Search
Warrant are hereby ordered returned to petitioners.

You might also like