142. People v.

Mamaril, GR 147607, Jan 22 2004

Facts:
The case involves appellant Benhur Mamaril who was charged with violation of Section
8 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6425, as amended by RA No. 7659. The Information filed
against appellant stated that he willfully, unlawfully, and criminally possessed crushed
marijuana leaves and bricks of marijuana fruiting tops without authority to possess the
same. The search was conducted in the house and premises of the parents of the
accused, where he also lives, in Lingayen, Pangasinan. The search was conducted by
the elements of the PNP, and the accused was present during the search. The search
yielded several heat-sealed plastic sachets containing suspected marijuana leaves, as
well as bricks of suspected marijuana. The confiscated items were brought to the Crime
Laboratory for examination, and the forensic chemist confirmed the presence of
marijuana and methamphetamine hydrochloride in the confiscated items and the urine
sample of the accused. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.
Issue:
Whether or not the search warrant was illegally issued, rendering the evidence seized
inadmissible.

Held:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant and declared the search warrant null
and void. The evidence seized pursuant to the illegal search warrant is inadmissible in
court. The accused is acquitted and ordered to be released from confinement.

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed under Article III,
Section 2 of the Constitution. The issuance of a search warrant is justified only upon a
finding of probable cause, which requires the judge to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses under oath and reduce the examination to writing in the
form of searching questions and answers. In this case, the prosecution failed to present
the sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses, showing that the judge
complied with the requirement of conducting a proper examination. The absence of the
required written deposition renders the search warrant invalid. The evidence seized
pursuant to the illegal search warrant cannot be used against the accused in court.
157. Sy v. Domingo
172. Sony Music v. Judge Espanol, GR 156804, March 14, 2005
Facts:
Sony Music Entertainment (Phils.), Inc. and IFPI (Southeast Asia), Ltd. filed a criminal
complaint against James Uy, David Chung, Elena Lim, and Solid Laguna Corporation
(SLC) for violation of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1987. The National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) applied for search warrants against the defendants, alleging
copyright infringement and violation of PD No. 1987. The search warrants were issued
by the respondent judge, and the seized items were brought to a private warehouse.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed the complaint against the defendants,
stating that they were licensed by the Videogram Regulatory Board (VRB) to operate as
replicators and duplicators of videograms. The defendants moved to quash the search
warrants, and the respondent judge granted the motion, quashing one of the search
warrants. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the
respondent judge.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing
the search warrant.
Ruling:
The petition is dismissed, and the temporary restraining order is recalled.
The issuance of a search warrant requires the existence of probable cause, which
means the existence of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet
and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched. The testimonies
of the applicant and his witnesses must be based on personal knowledge of the facts,
and hearsay information or tips from confidential informants must be validated and
followed up personally by the recipient. In this case, the applicant and his witnesses
relied on hearsay information and certifications, and did not have personal knowledge
that the seized items were infringing or pirated copies. The search warrant was issued
based on false information and without probable cause, making it invalid. The
respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in quashing the search
warrant.
187. De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 PHIL 689

Facts:
Leona Pasion Viuda de Garcia filed a petition for mandamus to annul a search warrant
and two orders issued by the respondent judge. On November 10, 1934, Mariano G.
Almeda, an agent of the Anti-Usury Board, obtained a search warrant from the justice
of the peace of Tarlac, Tarlac. The search warrant authorized the search of the
petitioner's person, house, or store in Victoria, Tarlac for certain books, lists, chits,
receipts, documents, and other papers relating to her activities as a usurer. The search
warrant was issued based on an affidavit made by Almeda stating that he had probable
cause to believe that the petitioner kept and concealed the mentioned items in her
house and store. On the same day, Almeda, accompanied by a captain of the Philippine
Constabulary, executed the search warrant at the petitioner's office in Victoria, Tarlac.
Two packages of records and a locked filing cabinet containing several papers and
documents were seized by Almeda, and a receipt was issued to the petitioner's
bookkeeper. The seized papers and documents were kept by the Anti-Usury Board and
later turned over to the respondent fiscal, who filed six separate criminal cases against
the petitioner for violation of the Anti-Usury Law. The petitioner, through her counsel,
demanded the return of the seized documents on several occasions, but the demands
were refused. The petitioner challenged the legality of the search warrant and
requested the return of the documents in the criminal cases, but the respondent judge
denied the motion, stating that there was a waiver on the part of the petitioner.

Issue:
Whether there was a valid waiver by Garcia of her constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizures due to her failure to object during the search and
her delay in demanding the return of the seized documents.

Held:
No. The Supreme Court held that the search warrant was illegally issued and declared it
void. The judge failed to determine probable cause independently and did not
personally examine the complainant and witnesses under oath, violating constitutional
requirements. The seized documents were not delivered to the court but were used by
the provincial fiscal in filing criminal cases against Garcia. The court rejected the
argument that Garcia waived her constitutional right through acquiescence,
emphasizing that peaceful submission to a search does not constitute consent or
invitation but a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. The court further
noted that Garcia, through counsel, actively demanded the return of the seized
documents on multiple occasions, negating any implied waiver. As a result, the court
ordered the immediate return and restoration of all seized properties, documents,
papers, and effects to Garcia.
The decision emphasized the constitutional right of the people to be secure against
unreasonable searches and seizures. It reiterated the requirements for a valid search
warrant, including independent determination of probable cause by the judge,
examination of the complainant and witnesses under oath, and a detailed description of
the place to be searched and items to be seized. The court clarified that constitutional
immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right that cannot be
waived by anyone other than the person whose rights are invaded. The court rejected
the notion of waiver by implication, asserting that a peaceful submission to a search is
not a waiver, and actively demanding the return of seized property is evidence of non-
waiver.