Kho vs. Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70

BENJAMIN V.
KHO and ELIZABETH ALINDOGAN, Petitioners, v. HON.

ROBERTO L. MAKALINTAL and NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, Respondents.
[G.R. No. 94902-06. April 21, 1999]
Purisima, J.
FACTS:
On May 15, 1990, NBI Agent Salvador applied for a search warrant
against Benjamin Kho in his residence at BF Homes, Paranaque. On the
same day, NBI Agent Arugay also applied to the same court for a
warrant against the Kho for in his house at Brgy. Moonwalk, Paranaque.
The warrants were applied for after NBI trams had conducted personal
surveillance and investigation in the two houses based on the
confidential information they received that the places were being used as
storage centers for unlicensed firearms and “chop-chop” vehicles. NBI
sought the issuance of the warrants in anticipation of criminal cases to
be filed against Kho.
On the same day, the Judge Makalintal conducted the necessary
examination of the applicants and their witnesses, after which he issued
the warrant. On May 16, 1990, armed with the search warrant, the NBI
agents searched the subject premises and recovered various high-
powered firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, explosives,
and various radio and telecommunication equipment in both houses. The
items were confiscated. Upon verification with the Firearms and
Explosives Unit, the NBI agents found out that no license has ever been
issued to any person/entity for the confiscated items.
On May 22, 1990, NBI submitted separate returns to Judge Makalintal
requesting that the items seized be in the continued custody of the NBI
and on May 28, 1990, petitioners presented a Motion to Quash the said
warrants; Judge Makalintal dismissed their petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the subject search warrants were issued without
probable cause.
2. Whether or not the subject search warrants are prohibited under
the Constitution for being ‘general warrants’
3. Whether or not the said warrants were issued in violation of the
procedural requirements set forth in the Constitution and the Rules of
Court
RULING:
 NO. Petitioners argue that the surveillance and investigation
conducted by the NBI within the premises were not sufficient to vest in
the applicant’s personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances
showing or indicating the commission of the crime. But the records show
that the NBI agents who conducted the surveillance and investigation
testified unequivocally that they saw guns being carried to and unloaded
in the two houses. Applicant Salvador and Agent Vargas testified that
they personally attended the surveillance together with their witnesses
and saw the firearms being unloaded from motor vehicles and brought
into the houses. Therefore, the questioned search warrants were based
on the personal knowledge of the applicants and their witnesses.
Furthermore, Judge Makalintal was the one who personally examined
the applicants and witnesses who asked searching questions vis-à-vis
the applications for search warrants. The Judge was able to observe and
determine whether the subject applicants and their witnesses gave
accurate accounts of the surveillance and investigation.
 NO. Petitioners claim that subject search warrants are general

warrants proscribed by the Constitution; that the things to be seized
were not described and detailed out but the records on hand indicate
that the search warrants under scrutiny specifically describe the items to
be seized. The use of the phrase “and the like” is of no moment and
does not make the search warrants in general warrants. The said
warrants comply with the Constitutional and statutory requirements. The
law does not require that the things to be seized must be described in
precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of
the searching authorities, otherwise, it would be virtually impossible for
the applicants to obtain a warrant as they would not know exactly what
kind of things are looking for. In this case, the NBI agents could not have
been in the position to know beforehand the exact caliber or make of the
firearms to be seized and the failure to specify detailed descriptions in
the warrants did not render the same general.
 NO. Nothing improper is perceived in the manner the respondent
Judge conducted the examination of the applicants and their witnesses.
The Judge personally examined them under oath and asked them
searching questions on the facts and circumstances personally known to
them, in compliance with prescribed procedure and legal requirements.
The sworn statements and affidavits submitted by the witnesses were
duly attached to the pertinent records of the proceedings. It was within
the discretion of the examining judge to determine what questions to ask
the witnesses so long as the examinations asked are germane to the
pivot of inquiry – the existence or absence of a probable cause.
Thus, the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Kho vs. Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kho vs. Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kho vs. Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BENJAMIN V.

KHO and ELIZABETH ALINDOGAN, Petitioners, v. HON.

 NO. Petitioners claim that subject search warrants are general

Thus, the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

You might also like