Silva vs judge rtc

DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE

Thus, in issuing a search warrant, the judge must strictly comply with the constitutional and statutory
requirement :

1. that he must determine the existence of probable cause by personally examining the
applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers. His failure to
comply with this requirement constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

SEC. 4. Examination of complainant; record. — The judge must, before issuing the warrant,
personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath
the complainant and any witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and
attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted.

The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and any witnesses he may
produce and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted;

SEC. 3. Requisite for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable
cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

The "probable cause" for a valid search warrant, has been 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 objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched". This
probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the
witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay.

JOHN DOE WARRANT (EXEMPTION TO PARTICULARITY)

Under the authorities cited by the appellant, it is invariably recognized that the warrant for the
apprehension of an unnamed party is void, "except in those cases where it contains a description
personae such as will enable the officer to identify the accused." The description must be sufficient
to indicate clearly the proper person upon whom the warrant is to be served. As the search warrant stated
that John Doe had gambling apparatus in his possession in the building occupied by him at No. 124 Calle
Arzobispo, City of Manila, and as this John Doe was Jose Ma. Veloso, the manager of the club, the police
could identify John Doe as Jose Ma. Veloso without difficulty.

What is a John Doe Warrant? A John Doe warrant is a warrant for the apprehension of a
person whose true name is unknown. Generally, this kind of warrants is void because it
What is a John Doe Warrant? A John Doe warrant is a warrant for the apprehension of a
person whose true name is unknown. Generally, this kind of warrants is void because it
What is a John Doe Warrant? A John Doe warrant is a warrant for the apprehension of aperson whose
true name is unknown. Generally, this kind of warrants is void because it

A search warrant proceeding is, in no sense, a criminal action or the commencement of a prosecution.
The proceeding is not one against any person, but is solely for the discovery and to get possession of
personal property. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and made necessary because of
public necessity. It resembles in some respect with what is commonly known as John Doe proceedings.
While an application for a search warrant is entitled like a criminal action, it does not make it such an
action [United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip, G.R. No. 163958, June 28, 2005],

iib)Where the judge failed to conform with the essential requisites of taking the deposition in writing and
attaching them to the record, it was held that search warrant is invalid, and the fact that the objection
thereto was raised only during the trial is of no moment, because the absence of such depositions was
discovered only after the arrest and during the trial[People v. Mamaril, G.R. No. 147607, January22,
2004],However, the Bill of Rights does not make it an imperative necessity that the depositions be
attached to the records of an application for a search warrant. The omission would not be fatal if there is
evidence on record showing that such personal examination was conducted and what testimony was
presented[People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003].

iic)Where the trial judge not only asked searching questions but leading questions, as well, the same was
not considered improper, because the complainant and the witnesses were reticent and had to be made
to explain[Flores v. Sumaljag, 290 SCRA 568]. c)After examination, under oath or affirmation, of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce. The personal examination must not be merely routinary
orpro forma,but must be probing and exhaustive. The purpose of this rule is to satisfy the examining
magistrate as to the existence of probable cause.

i ii)The evidence offered by the complainant and his witnesses should be based on their own personal
knowledge and not on mere information or belief. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts
within the personal knowledge of the applicant or his witnesses, because the purpose is to convince the
committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of
the existence of probable cause[Cupcupin v. People, G.R. No. 132389, November 19, 2002],InAlvarez v.
CFI, 64 Phil. 33,“reliable information” was held insufficient; inBurgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA
800,“evidence gathered and collated by our unit” was not sufficient; and inQuintero v. NBI, 162 SCRA
467,NBI Agent Castro knew nothing of his personal knowledge that Quintero committed an offense, while
Congressman Mate's statement was characterized by several omissions and replete with conclusions and
inferences, lacking the directness and definiteness which would have been present had the statement
dealt with facts which Congressman Mate actually witnessed. In

Sony Music Entertainment v. Judge Espanol, G.R. No. 156804, March 14, 2005,the Supreme Court said
that absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the facts upon which
the issuance of the

search warrant may be justified, the warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and is a nullity, the
issuance being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary. InMata v. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388,it was held that mere
affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses were not enough to sustain the issuance of a search
warrant.

iii)But inPeople v. Wooicock, 244 SCRA 235,where the police officers acted not merely on the information
given by the Thai Royal Police, but also conducted thorough surveillance on the accused, it was held that
the police officers had personal knowledge. iv)InColumbia Pictures v. Judge Flores, 223 SCRA 761,the
Supreme Court held that the judge must strictly comply with the constitutional and statutory requirements
for the issuance of a search warrant, including the need to personally examine the applicant and the
witnesses through searching questions. InPeople v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 140657, October25, 2004,the
Supreme Court said that it is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive and not
merely routinary, general, peripheral or perfunctory. If the Judge fails to determine probable cause by
personally examining the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions before issuing a
search warrant, it constitutes grave abuse of discretion. d)Particularity of description. InPeople v. Tee,
G.R. Nos. 14054647, January 20, 2003,it was held that this requirement is primarily meant to enable the
law enforcers serving the warrant to (1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them
from seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to
be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. Earlier, inCorro v. Using, 137 SCRA
541, the Court said that the evident purpose of this requirement is to leave the officers of the law with no
discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures
may not be made and abuses may not be committed. It is also aimed at preventing violations of security
of persons and property, and unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the home, and giving remedy against
such usurpation when attempted[People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457]. i)“General warrants” are proscribed
and unconstitutional[Nolasco v. Pano, 139 SCRA 152; Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA
800],InTambasen v. People, 246 SCRA 184,where the search warrant charged violations of two special
laws, it was considered a “scatter-shot warrant”, and was declared null and void. Indeed, as held inPeople
v. Tee, supra.,what the Constitution seeks to avoid are search warrants of broad and general
characterization or sweeping descriptions which will authorize police officers to undertake a fishing
expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to an offense.

ii)Warrant of Arrest.A warrant of arrest is said to particularly describe the person to be seized if it contains
the name/s of the person/s to be arrested. If the name of the person to be arrested is not known, then a
“John Doe” warrant may be issued. A “John Doe" warrant will satisfy the constitutional requirement of
particularity of description if there is somedescriptio personawhich will enable the officer to identify the
accused