Burgos vs.

Chief of Staff (1984)

Summary Cases:

● Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP

Subject:

The Supreme Court has the inherent power to suspend its own rules; The extrajudicial efforts exerted
negate laches; Articles, even if used as evidence in another case, cannot affect the invalidity of the
search warrants; The executing officer's prior knowledge as to the place to be searched is relevant; It is
not necessary that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search
warrant is directed; Machinery becomes immovable only when placed by the owner of the land or his
agent; Mere generalization of the probable cause for issuance of the search warrant will not suffice;
General warrants are prohibited; The closure of the newspaper business is abhorrent to the freedom of
the press

Facts:

Respondent Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano of the Court of First Instance of Rizal issued two search warrants
directed to law enforcement officers to search and seize the offices of the "Metropolitan Mail" and "We
Forum" with the addresses No. 19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City, and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building,
Quezon Avenue, Quezon City for allegedly publishing articles that incite subversion.

The officers seized all the printing machines, motor vehicles, office equipment and other articles used in
the printing, publication and distribution of the newspapers, as well as numerous documents and other
written literature alleged to be in the possession of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We
Forum" newspaper.

Petitioners prayed that a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued for the return
of the seized articles. They also questioned the validity of the warrants on the following grounds: (a)
Judge Pano failed to conduct an examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses.
(b)The two search warrants pinpointed only one place. (c) Articles belonging to co- petitioners were also
seized although the warrants were directed against Jose Burgos, Jr. alone (d) Real properties were also
seized. (e) The application accompanied by the Joint Affidavit of the members of the Metrocom
Intelligence and Security Group under Col. Abadilla could not gave provided sufficient basis for the
finding of a probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.

In defense, the respondent law enforcement officers sought to dismiss the petition on the following
grounds: (a) The petitioners should have filed a motion to quash the search warrants first before Judge
Pano before challenging their validity. (b) It should be dismissed on the ground of laches because the
| Page 1 of 4
petitioners only filed the case after an unreasonable length of time. (c) Burgos is now estopped from
challenging the validity of the search warrants since he had used and marked as evidence some of the
seized documents in a criminal case against him.

Held:

The Supreme Court has the inherent power to suspend its own rules

1. Even if there is procedural flaw in the issuance of the search warrants, the petition should be
taken cognizance in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional issues raised and
the public interest generated by the search of the "We Forum" offices. The existence of this
special circumstance justifies the Court to exercise its inherent power to suspend its rules.

The extrajudicial efforts exerted negate laches

2. Laches is failure or negligence for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that
which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable time warranting a presumption of abandonment to
assert it.

3. In the instant case, the reason given by petitioners may not be flattering but the extrajudicial
efforts exerted by petitioners negate the presumption that they had abandoned their right to the
possession of the seized property.

Even if used as evidence in another case cannot affect the invalidity of the search warrants

4. Burgos is not estopped from challenging the validity of the search warrants. The documents
lawfully belong to him and he can do whatever he pleases with them. The fact that he has used
them as evidence does not and cannot in any way affect the validity or invalidity of the search
warrants.

The executing officer's prior knowledge as to the place to be searched is relevant

| Page 2 of 4
5. The defect pointed out is obviously a typographical error. Precisely, two search warrants were
applied for and issued because the purpose and intent were to search two distinct premises.
Besides, the addresses of the places sought to be searched were specifically set forth in the
application, and since it was Col. Abadilla himself who headed the team which executed the
search warrants, the ambiguity that might have arisen by reason of the typographical error have
been cured.

6. In the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with
sufficient particularity, the executing officer's prior knowledge as to the place intended in the
warrant is relevant especially where the executing officer is the affiant and when he knows that
the judge who issued the warrant intended the building described in the affidavit. And it has also
been said that the executing officer may look to the affidavit in the official court file to resolve an
ambiguity in the warrant as to the place to be searched.

It is not necessary that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom
the search warrant is directed

7. Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court does not require that the property to be seized should
be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. In fact, one of the
properties that may be seized is stolen property. Ownership is of no consequence, and it is
sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the
property sought to be seized. In this case, petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was alleged to have in
relation to the articles and property seized under the warrants.

Machinery becomes immovable only when placed by the owner of the land or his agent

8. Machinery which is movable by nature becomes immobilized when placed by the owner of the
tenement, property or plant, but not so when placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or any other
person having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the agent of the owner. (See
Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo)

9. In the case at bar, petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land and/or building on
which the machineries were placed. Hence, the machineries, while in fact bolted to the ground
remain movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant.

Mere generalization of the probable cause for issuance of the search warrant will not suffice

| Page 3 of 4
10. Probable cause is defined as 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.

11. When the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in
connection with the publication of subversive materials, the application and its supporting
affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive material
he has published or is intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice.

12. The broad statement in Col. Abadilla's application that Burgos “is in possession documents
which were continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion” is a
mere conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause.

General warrants are prohibited

13. The search warrants issued are in the nature of general warrants. Jurisprudence prohibits
general warrants such as the case of Stanford v. State of Texas.

The closure of the newspaper business is abhorrent to the freedom of the press

14, The search and closure of the business and printing offices of the "Metropolitan Mail" and the
"We Forum newspapers” are in the nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the
freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental law, and constitutes a virtual denial of
petitioners' freedom to express themselves in print.

| Page 4 of 4