REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 77, QUEZON CITY PEOPLE OF THE ‘HILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NOS. R- ~versus ~ QZN- 19-11814-CR For: Violation of Sec. 3 of PD 1866, as amended by RA 9516 CRIM. CAS iS. R- QZN- 19-11815-CR For: Violation of Sec. 28 (a) & (e) of RA No. 10591 LEXANDER -AMONITA BIRONDO. y INTANAR ind WINONA MARIE. SERONDO y ONATE, Accused. oe SIs Vas e RESOLUTION (On the Omnibus Motion te Quash Search Warrants and Suppress Evidence) This resolves the defense’s Motion to Quash the Search Warrants iW) issued by the Hon. Executive Judge Cecilyn Burgos-Villavert (SW No. 98 and 5899, issued in 2019) and to suppress all the alleged recovered idence pursuant to implementation said Search Warrants. 2 E! According to the defense, the quashal of said search warrants is migrited because (1) the applicant and the witness have no personal Kppwledge of the alleged possession of firearm and explosives by the agpused herein; (2) the issuing judge did not ask searching and probing appstions in her determination of probable cause; and, (3) the applicant and i witness committed deliberate falsehood in their affidavits and testimony. hij|effect. there was no probable cause which was established to support the ishuance of the search warrants, and hence said warrants are void, and any evidence recoyered pursuant to their implementation should be suppressed in. arder to protect the constitutional rights of the accused against unlawful jearches and arrests. The State, through the assigned prosecutor of the court, argues that the ssertion that the witness presented by the applicant to the search warrants lad no personal knowledge relative to the existence of the firearm and {Plosive has no basis since it is clear from his affidavit and testimony that ie actually saw the firearm and grenade inside unit 51 5" floor of the rchway Apartment. The State likewise asserts that, contrary to the legation that the issuing judge failed to ask searching and probing fuestions, a complete reading of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) ' the application hearing would reveal that the Honorable Ceciiyn E. lurgos-Villavert made an exhaustive, searching, and probing examination of ihe primary witness to the application for Search Warrants. Finally, the State fics no legal nor factual basis for the assertion that the applicant and the JYitness to the Search Warrants were lying under oath. JULING After a careful and deliberate evaluation, the court is of the opinion ir the Omnibus Motion filed by the defense deserves merit and therefore jould be GRANTED. The court will elucidate. To statt, it should be clarified that what are being sought to be lashed are two separate search warrants, ie., (1) Search Warrant No. 98 (19) for violation of Section 3 of PD 1866 as amended by RA 9516, or thp illegal possession of an explosive device, and (2) Search Warrant No, 199 (19) for violation of RA 10591, or the illegal possession an unlicensed/ registered firearm. In examining the records of the application for these pprch warrarits, most particularly the sworn statement of Bryan Reyes, the }|mary witness, as well as the copy of the TSN of his testimony in court, court has reached the conclusion that the SW Nos. 5898 and 5899 (19) puld be quashed and the recovered grenade/explosive device, firearm and munition should be suppressed as evidence against the two accused, a. Search Warrant No,5898 (19) The defense’s assertion that the primary witnes to the application Brian T. Reyes) has no personal knowledge of the facts to which he thi is clearly applicable to his assertion that he saw a grenade in the ce sought to be searched. His sworn statement reveals this. In this dgfument, Mr Reyes clearly stated in paragraphs 4 to 6 that he 4firearm and grenade on top of the bed inside Unit 515 of the Archway partment, to wit; 4. Na, noong umaga ng ika-21 ng Hulyo 4019, ako ay nangongolekia ng mga basura sa labas ng mga kwarto ng mga tenant og Archway apartment at habang Kinukuha ko ang basura mula sa labas ng Unit 515 sa may Sth Floor, nasilip ko mula sa bintana ng kwarto ang isang baril na nakapatong sa ibabaw ng kama at nakita ko rin ang isang bagay na sa aking pagkakaalam ay isang granada . 5. Na, binalewala ko ang aking nakitang baril pati ang granada sa pag-aakalang baril ito ng bisitang sundalo o Pulis at nasilip ko rin ang ilang lalaki sa loob ng kwarto pero hindi ko pinansin at ipinagpatuloy ko lang aking pagkolekta ng mga basura, 6 Na, nuong umaga ng ika-22 ng hulyo 2019, ako ay nangongolekta ulit ng mga basura ng mga tenant at nuong Kinokolekta ko ang basura sa may Unit 515 sa may 5th Floor ay nasilip kong muli sa may bintana ang parehong baril na nakapatong naman sa may lamesa katabi ang mga bala habang pinupunasan ng isang lalaking nakakatalikod ang magazine ng baril at nakita ko rin ang bagay na sa pagkakalam ko ay Granada. However, upon further reading the subsequent paragraphs (pars. 8 to ), it can be seen that said witness appears to have totally forgotten about existence of any grenade, to wit: §. Na, may lumapit sa akin na isang lalaking hagpakilalang pulis ai tinanong ako ano ang aking ginagawa sa lugar. Sinabi ko na maintenance/janitor ako ng apartment at duon ay tinanong ako kung ano ang aking napapansin sa mga nakatira sa Unit $15 9. Sinabi_ko sa nagtanong na pulis ang aking hapansin na nitong buwan ng Hulyo 2019 ay may mga kalalakihang madalas nagpupunta sa nasabing kwarto at may mga nakasukbit na baril sa beywang. 10. Na, sinabi ko din na may nasilip akong baril sa loob ng kwarto na nakapatong sa may kama ng nasabing kwarto at minsan ay nakapatong naman ito sa lamesa;HL. Na, dahil sa aking sinabi ay inimbitahan ako ng mga pulis sa kanilang opisina sa DSOU, QCPD kung saan ako nagbigay ng aking sinumpaang salaysay hinggil sa aking nakitang baril at mga bala sa loob ng Unit 515 ng Archway Apartment.! From the above statements, it would appear that what the witness jctually saw and what he actually reported to the police was only about the frearm and ammunition which he saw. ‘There was no mention of any bees nor any explosive device. This puzzling dissonance in the witness’ itement could have been clarified during the hearing for the ion of the search warrants but unfortunately, such was not touched pon during his testimony. What appears from his testimony is the fact that [What he actually saw was only a firearm, to wit: Q Anong napansin mo noong July 21? A May nakita po akong baril sa kama. Q Anong oras ka nanguha ng basura? A Inuna ko po sa ibaba, siguro po nandoon mga 7:00 a.m. Q Hang tao more or less ang nakita mo sa loob? A Noong araw na iyon, siguro po mga 4 po at may nakita po ako sa may kama Q Sabi mo may nakita ka sa kama, anong nakita mo? A Baril po, sigurado po ako doon. Q_ Gaano ka kalayo, sa ibabaw ba ng ng kama mo nakita hoong July 21, 2019? Opo may nakita po ako sa kama, Q _ Dalawang petsa ang nandito, July 21, July 22, sabi mo July 21, nakita mo na may baril at sa pagkakalinan mo isang granada sa ibabaw ng kama? A Gaano ka kalayo doon sa kama magsimula doon sa labas, (at this juncture, the witness demonstrated the actual distance). Q Mga isang dipa o dalawang dipa ft ' Hmphases supplied.A__ Isang dipa lang, Q _ Kapag sinabi mo na "kukunin ko na po sa basura”, 50 natatanaw mo kaagad siya? Ope. Sabi mo nga, | dipa lang iyon, so malapit lang iyon? Opo. >o Q __Tkaw ba ay pamilyar sa klase ng baril baril lang siya at hindi mo alam kung anong klaseng baril? A 2 lang po ang alam ko, mahaba at maiksi? Q Ito ba ay maiksi 0 mahaba? A Maiksi po at yung may mga bala na nandoon sa kama? From the above exchanges, it appears that what the witness actually 'w was just a firearm and several ammunition. These are his original and ithentic observations which he stated voluntarily and without any influence prodding. It can be gleaned from the above that during the first part of his stimony, the witness never stated that he saw a grenade. According to him, hat he saw was a firearm and of this he was certain. Q Sabi mo may nakita ka sa kama, anong nakita mo? A Baril po, sigurado po ako doon. The fact that the witness did not initially mention a grenade, but only Wade mention about a gun when asked what he saw, is problematic, to say de least. Between @ firearm and a grenade, the latter would ordinarily jyumand more attention and focus, since it is the deadlier of the two, and it Ih Hot common for one to see a grenade in real life. Hence, the latter, if adtually seen, would, in the ordinary course of human narration, be the first He to be mentioned. Moreover, it also appears from the above, the witness is} only certain (“sigurado po ako doon”) about the firearm. He never ipdicated such certainty regarding any explosive device. The testimony that he saw a grenade appears to had been spoon fed to him when he was reminded of what he stated in his sworn statement, to wit: Q Nakita mo ang baril at granada? A Opo, magkatabi sila, maliit lang po ang space ng lamesa. *TBN dated July 23, 2019, p. 8, emphases supplied, 5Q _ Sigurado ka ba na granada? A |Opo.3 The witness appears to have been led to state that he saw a grenade, gether with the firearm, He was only made to affirm what he stated in his worn statement. This is not enough especially if we are to note that prior to [these questions, the witness never stated that he saw a grenade. Hence, a more circumspect line of questioning could had been opounded to determine if the witness actually saw a grenade or was erely guided by the question, “Nakita mo ang baril at granada?” The ‘itness could have been asked why he failed to mention the grenade in the lier portion of his testimony and why he also failed to mention it again in ie latter part of his sworn statement. He could also have been asked how he new that what he saw was a grenade, and thereafter made to describe the ime, if only to test his credibility. This is critical since in his swom statement, Mr. Reyes appears to be certain that what he saw was indeed a grenade. In said swom statement, i. Reyes stated, not once, but twice, that he saw a thing which he only lieves, to his knowledge, to be a grenade (“nakita ko rin ang bagay na sa igkakalam ko ay Granada”),' there appears to be an absence of certainty pout the fact that what he actually saw was indeed a grenade. Hence, it was nportant for the witness to have been asked questions which would Ptermine how he came to the conclusion that what he saw was really a enade, Such were never propounded. Instead, the witness was just asked a ty leading question, “Sigurado ka ba na Granada? To which the witness imply replied “ope.” No follow up questions were asked as to how he came {H the conclusion that it was indeed a grenade. Essentially, what was relied upon was only the wimess’ sworn statement and no attempt to ask searching and probing questions was made, ifsofar as the discovery of the grenade is concerned. This lack of sufficient jHestioning regarding the grenade juxtaposed with the witness’ sworn sthtement and his testimony in court, leads this court to conclude that there is basis for the issuance of SW No. 5898 (19). b. Search Warrant No.5899 (19) Insofar as SW No. 5899 (19) is concemed, it appears that it is fective insofar as the description of the item to be seized is concerned, In b said warrant, the items to be seized were described as: “HSN, ibid, p. 9; emphasis supplied. 7 Ree pars. 4 and 6 of Mr. Brian Reyes” swom statement 6a, a firearm of unknown caliber; and b. various ammunition. For this court, this description does not comply with the requirement f particularity. The said warrant failed to indicate what kind of firearm and Hmmunition were to be seized. It need not have been the definite model or faliber, nor a technical description of said items. It could have been a simple lescription of whether it is a long or short firearm, a pistol or revolver, or jerhaps, using the classification provided for in Republic Act No. 10591, fhether it is a Class A light weapon or Class B light weapon, The lescription made in the said warrant therefore violates one of the quirements in order to be valid and to justify an intrusion; to wit (1) it must be issued upon "probable cause;" (2) probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) such judge must examine under oath or affirmation the omplainant and the witnesses he may produce; and (4) the warrant must particularly describe the place to be earched and the persons or things to be seized. The court is not unmindful of the landmark case of Bache and Co. Hii), Inc. v. Ruiz,® which pointed out that one of the tests to determine the uiticularity in the description of objects to be seized under a search warrant p when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to fs offense for which the warrant is being issued. In this case, this means it SW No. 5899 (19), in order to be valid, should have described the items be seized in relation to RA 10591, Bearing this guideline in mind, itis still omitted that the search warrant should have described the firearm to be ized, as this was described by the witness who actually saw the said item, the is, it is a “short” firearm, or simply a handgun. In this case, the scription in SW No, 5899 (19) was too general as to include any kind of jearm which does not even fit the description made by the witness in his timony. This is made worse by the fact that it was not even made clear ether the said firearm he allegedly saw was a pistol or a revolver. Nevertheless, even if the description of the items to be seized comply th the requirements as clarified in Bache, the evidence presented during ‘ople v. Tiu Won Chua, 453 Phil. 177, 184 (2003), as cited in People v. Gabios: GF No. 248395, January 29, 2020; emphasis supplied. “$Y SCRA 823, 835 (1971),¢ application proceedings appear to be insufficient to establish probable ‘ause that the firearm belongs to, or were in the Possession of, the accused ferein. As testified to by Mr. Reyes, there were many persons going in and tut of Unit'No 515 during the carly part of July 2019 some of whom were ven carrying tucked firearms.’ This means that any of these unidentified as could have been the possessor of the firearm and ammunition seen py him, 41 should also be pointed out that there was nothing in the testimony of {pe witness which categorically pointed to the accused herein as the Jossessors of the firearm/ ammunition. In fact, the witness never stated that je saw any of the accused herein being in possession of the firearm and immunition he saw. To be precise, when he was asked in court as to what he w on July 21, 2019, he stated that he saw the firearm and at least four (4) jersons inside Unit 515, not one of whom was identified as one of the cused herein.® = On the other hand, when he was asked as to what he saw on July 22, f never mentioned that it was any of the accused whom he saw apparently jeaning a gun. According to him, the said person’s back was tamed to him, lus he did not clearly see who he was. In fact, he even thought the said brson was a police officer.’ Thus, other than the evidence that the accused were the tenants of the id apartment, there was no evidence definitely linking any of them to the earm and ammunition seen by the witness. It was not made clear during tHe examination of Mr. Reyes whether he actually saw any of the accused in tual possession of the firearm and ammunition. In fact, it was not even made clear whether the accused herein were ide the unit when these items were seen by the witness. According to his mony, he does not know the tenants of Unit $15. It also appears that ¢ tenants were not the ones who actually hired him to retrieve their trash. Aire there was testimony that the person paying him to get the trash s inside the unit on July 21, the fact of the matter is, it was never ablished that it was any of the accused who pays Mr. Reyes, From the testimony of Mr. Reyes, one could easily see the probability tht the firearm and ammunition which he allegedly saw could have been Hos by any of the unidentified persons he saw inside the unit on July 21 22 and were only brought there by these persons, This probability and Uy fact that the witness never identified any of the accused as being in vom Statement of Brian Reyes, Par. 3; see also TSN, ibid, p. 5 “IBN, ibid, p, § Hid, p. 10.‘ontrol and/or possession of the firearms seen by the witness in unit 515 should have prompted the law enforcers to conduct a more thorough Investigation to support their applications for a search ‘waitant. As such, it fic assuming that the witness’ report to them was true, the police fficers were too eager to Jump at the opportunity to secure a search warrant ithout first ascertaining the identities of the persons allegedly visiting the \said unit. Another point to consider is the sudden appearance of Mr. Reyes as a Witness to the search warrant application. It appears that this witness only farted collecting garbage in the month of July, the same month when the Hatred were arrested and when the search warrants were applied for and nplemented. His history and identity was not sufficiently established. In his ‘orn staternent, he identified himself as maintenance/janitor of Archway fppsciment However, during his testimony in court, he stated that he was a rbage collector paid by the tenants to collect their garbage and was in fact tan employee of said apartment complex. Being paid for by the tenants of the apartment units, it was not clearly established who hired him to do this b. According to him, he was just referred by friends who live in the units lowever, these friends were not identified. More importantly, it was not clarified how he came to collect from it 515. It seems that before he can start collecting garbage from each unit, i needs to be acquainted with the tenants of said units in order for them to #rce that he would be paid by them. However, as stated by him, he had not fen met the tenants of unit 515, so who pays him for collecting the garbage if{ said unit? This was not clarified Moreover, it was not sufficiently established how Mr. Reyes was aHquired/identified by the police as a potential witness to the application for sfptch warrants. The police officer who allegedly talked to him on July 23 s not presented in court, thus failing to shed any illumination on how he (Nix. Reyes) was discovered as a witness, According to Mr. Reyes, he was just approached by a police officer ‘0 immediately asked him what he was doing there, with no explanation as why he was the one specifically approached. It was not even clarified c Here he (Reyes) was approached. This is important considering that upon estioning by the court, Mr. Reyes testified that he was at unit S15 in the ming of July 23. Juxtaposed to the testimony of PCapt, Marvin cencio, this placed him (Reyes) five (5) floors away from where the of the accused were effected, that is, in the parking iot of the ‘ riment complex, located on the ground floor. If this was the case, how Mr. Reyes seen by the police? This was not explained, thus, leaving a }pblance of incredulity to the happenstance that Mr. Reyes just happened seen by the police at an opportune moment when they needed someone gz BR eso 9{° provide information regarding unit 515, not to mention the serendipitous fact that Mr, Reyes just happened to start his stint as a garbage collector of he apartment units in the same month the accused signed their | lease ontract, The questions left unanswered and the inconsistencies not clarified jelies the existence of probable cause which Justify the issuance of the Kearch warrants. For this reason, the warrants should be quashed. WHEREFORE, Above Premises Considered, Search Warrant He 5898 (19) and Search Warrant No. 5899 (19) are hereby QUASHED and clared invalid. The evidence recovered Pursuant to these Search Warrants ¢ deemed inadmissible as evidence. SO ORDERED, August 13, 2021, Quezon City. FERDINAQAD C. BAYLON Pr&iding Judge 2 PY FURNISHED: all parties by email