Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

TWELFTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. SP. No. 169574

PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, Members:
ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, N.G.,
Chairperson,
ALIÑO-GELUZ, E.R., and
- versus -
DELA ROSA, J.L.R., JJ.

HON. MONIQUE A.
QUISUMBING-IGNACIO, in her
capacity as Presiding Judge of THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
MANDALUYONG CITY,
BRANCH 209, RODRIGO Promulgated:
ESPARAGO, and LADY ANN ________________________
SALEM,
Respondents.

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION
DELA ROSA, J.:

Acting on petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration1 dated 28 February

2023, through the Office of the Solicitor General (hereinafter OSG), vis-à-vis,
the private respondent Lady Ann Salem’s Comment2 dated 29 March 2023,

1 Rollo, at 479-493.
2 Id. at 507-519.
CA-G.R. SP. No. 169574 Page 2 of 3
People v. Esparago et al.,
Resolution
x--------------------x

this Court finds no compelling reason to alter or reverse our Decision3

promulgated on 27 January 2023.

Petitioner avers that: 1) Search Warrant No. 6044 (20) is valid as it

satisfied the requirement of specificity; 2) A search warrant is severable, and
that a general description of some items will not invalidate the entire warrant;
3) Inconsistent testimonies of witnesses in the application for the search
warrants do not affect the probable cause finding of the public respondent
judge; and 4) the implementation of the search warrants was proper and in
accordance with the law.

The Motion for Reconsideration fails to present any new and substantial
matter, or any cogent and compelling reason which would justify
reconsideration of this Court’s ruling. Let it be emphasized that the filing of a
motion for reconsideration does not impose on this Court the obligation to
discuss and rule again on the grounds relied upon by petitioner, which are
mere reiterations of the issues previously raised and thoroughly determined
and evaluated in this Court’s Decision.

As regards the validity of Search Warrant No. 6044 (20), private

respondent correctly pointed out that the case of Kho v. Makalintal4 is not on
all squares with the case at bar. The facts in the said case show that the
surveillance conducted could not give the National Bureau of Investigation a
close view of the weapons being transported or brought to the premises to be
searched. Hence, the Supreme Court allowed leeway in the description of
things to be seized, taking into consideration the effort and time element
involved in the prosecution of criminal cases. In the present case, information
about the firearms and explosives during the application for search warrant
came from the personal and up-close knowledge of an undercover police
officer. Thus, it is rational for this Court to expect that the undercover police
officer will be able to describe the items to be seized with particularity.

Since the items in Search Warrant No. 6044 (20) lack particularity in
their descriptions, this negates the invocation of the warrant severability
doctrine. The act of the searching officers in taking all the laptops and
cellphones that they could get during the search is precisely the danger sought
to be prevented by the constitutional requirement that the things to be seized
must be particularly described in order that law enforcement officers will not
have unbridled discretion as to what articles they shall seize.

3 Id., at 458-475.
4
Kho v. Makalintal, G.R. No. 94902-06 (1999).
CA-G.R. SP. No. 169574 Page 3 of 3
People v. Esparago et al.,
Resolution
x--------------------x

Again, this Court emphasizes its proposition that the applicant and
witnesses for a search warrant be persons who are absolutely keen and
proficient in observing, examining, and recalling all the essential and pivotal
details during an operation, to guarantee that the said applicant and witnesses
are adept and competent enough to answer the probing questions posed by the
judge to whom the search warrant was applied for, and to satisfactorily
substantiate the need for the issuance of the search warrant.

Lastly, the issue regarding the inconsistent statements and testimonies of

the witnesses and the improper implementation of the search warrants had
been considered, weighed, and passed upon by the Court in its Decision. The
filing of a motion for reconsideration does not impose on the Court the
obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon
therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final
order as regards the issues raised and submitted for decision. This would be a
useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the
reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the
arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with
respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as above stated, deemed
waived because not asserted at the first opportunity.5

ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is DENIED

for utter lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE LORENZO R. DELA ROSA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA
Associate Justice

EMILY R. ALIÑO-GELUZ
Associate Justice

5 Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, G.R. Nos. 109645 & 112564 (1996).