Kho vs Makalintal G.R. No. 94902-06.

April 21, 1999

Facts: Petitioners sought to restrain the respondent NBI from using the objects seized by virtue of such warrants in any case or cases filed or to be filed against them and to return immediately the said items, including the firearms, ammunition and explosives, radio communication equipment, hand sets, transceivers, two units of vehicles and motorcycle Petitioners question the issuance of subject search warrants, theorizing upon the absence of any probable cause therefor !hey contend that the surveillance and investigation conducted by NBI agents within the premises involved, prior to the application for the search warrants under controversy, were not sufficient to vest in the applicants personal "nowledge of facts and circumstances showing or indicating the commission of a crime by them #petitioners$

to assess their testimonies and to find out their personal "nowledge of facts and circumstances enough to create a probable cause !he :udge was the one who personally examined the applicants and witnesses and who as"ed searching questions vis/a/vis the applications for search warrants 5e was thus able to observe and determine whether subject applicants and their witnesses gave accurate accounts of the surveillance and investigation they conducted at the premises to be searched In the absence of any showing that respondent judge was recreant of his duties in connection with the personal examination he so conducted on the affiants before him, there is no basis for doubting the reliability and correctness of his findings and impressions

ss!": %hether petitioners& contention of the absence of probable cause in the given situation is tenable

#"l$: Petitioners& contention is untenable 'ecords show that the NBI agents who conducted the surveillance and investigation testified unequivocably that they saw guns being carried to and unloaded at the two houses searched, and motor vehicles and spare parts were stored therein In fact, applicant (ax B )alvador declared that he personally attended the surveillance together with his witnesses #!)N, (ay *+, *,,-, pp ./0$, and the said witnesses personally saw the weapons being unloaded from motor vehicles and carried to the premises referred to NBI 1gent 1li 2argas testified that he actually saw the firearms being unloaded from a !oyota 3ite/1ce van and brought to the aformentioned house in B4 5omes, Paranaque because he was there inside the compound posing as an appliance agent #!)N, (ay *+, *,,-, pp 6/+$ It is therefore decisively clear that the application for the questioned search warrants was based on the personal "nowledge of the applicants and their witnesses In the case of Central Bank v. Morfe #.- )7'1 +-8$, this 7ourt ruled that th" %!"stion o& 'h"th"r or not a pro(a(l" ca!s" ")ists is on" 'hich *!st (" $"t"r*in"$ in li+ht o& th" con$itions o(tainin+ in +iv"n sit!ations In Luna v. Plaza #.9 )7'1 0*-$, it held that the existence of a probable cause depends to a large extent upon the finding or opinion of the judge who conducted the required examination of the applicants and the witnesses 1fter a careful study, the 7ourt discerns no basis for disturbing the findings and conclusions arrived at by the respondent :udge after examining the applicants and witnesses 'espondent judge had the singular opportunity

<n the same day, the respondent :udge conducted the necessary examination of the applicants and their witnesses, after which he issued )earch %arrant Nos ,-/**, ,-/*., ,-/*0, ,-/*6, and ,-/*+ <n the following day, (ay *9, *,,-, armed with )earch %arrant Nos ,-/** and ,-/*., NBI agents searched subject premises at B4 5omes, Paranaque, and they recovered various high/powered firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition (eanwhile, another search was conducted at the house at No 0.9 (cAivitt )t Bgy (oonwal", Paranaque, by another team of NBI agents using )earch %arrant Nos ,-/*0, ,-/*6 and ,-/*+ !he said second search yielded several high/powered firearms with explosives and more than a thousand rounds of ammunition !he simultaneous searches also resulted in the confiscation of various radio and telecommunication equipment, two units of motor vehicles #3ite/1ce vans$ and one motorcycle Dpon verification with the 4irearms and ;xplosives Dnit in 7amp 7rame, the NBI agents found out that no license has ever been issued to any person or entity for the confiscated firearms in question 3i"ewise, the radio agents found out that no license has ever been issued to any person or entity for the confiscated firearms in question 3i"ewise, the radio tranceivers recovered and motor vehicles seized turned out to be unlicensed and unregistered per records of the government agencies concerned <n (ay .., *,,-, the raiding teams submitted separate returns to the respondent :udge requesting that the items seized be in the continued custody of the NBI #1nnexes B<C, BPC, and B>C, Petition$ <n (ay .E, *,,-, the petitioners presented a (otion to >uash the said )earch %arrants, contending that? * !he subject search warrants were issued without probable causeF . 0 !he same search warrants are prohibited 7onstitution for being general warrantsF by the

;N B1N7

,G.R. No. 94902-06. April 21, 1999-

./N0AM N 1. K#2 an$ /3 4A./5# A3 N62GAN, petitioners, vs. #2N. R2./R52 3. MAKA3 N5A3 an$ NA5 2NA3 .7R/A7 2F N1/85 GA5 2N,respondents. 6/9 :7R 8 MA, J.: !his is a petition for certiorari assailing the <rder, dated :uly .9, *,,-, of Branch 3==2II of the (etropolitan !rial 7ourt of Paranaque, which denied petitioners& (otion to >uash )earch %arrants emanating from the same 7ourt Petitioners sought to restrain the respondent National Bureau of Investigation #NBI$ from using the objects seized by virtue of such warrants in any case or cases filed or to be filed against them and to return immediately the said items, including the firearms, ammunition and explosives, radio communication equipment, hand sets, transceivers, two units of vehicles and motorcycle !he antecedent facts are as follows? <n (ay *+, *,,-, NBI 1gent (ax B )alvador applied for the issuance of search warrants by the respondent :udge against Banjamin 2 @ho, now petitioner, in his residence at No 6+ Bb 'amona !irona )t , B4 5omes, Phase I, Paranaque <n the same day, ;duardo ! 1rugay, another NBI agent, applied with the same court for the issuance of search warrants against the said petitioner in his house at No 0.9 (cAivitt )t , Bgy (oonwal", Paranaque !he search warrants were applied for after teams of NBI agents had conducted a personal surveillance and investigation in the two houses referred to on the basis of confidential information they received that the said places were being used as storage centers for unlicensed firearms and Bchop/chopC vehicles 'espondent NBI sought for the issuance of search warrants in anticipation of criminal cases to be instituted against petitioner @ho 8 2N

!he said search warrants were issued in violation of the procedural requirements set forth by the 7onstitutionF

6 !he search warrants aforesaid were served in violation of the 'evised 'ules of 7ourtF and + !he objects seized were all legally possessed and issued <n :uly .9, *,,-, respondent :udge issued the assailed <rder denying the said (otion !o >uash interposed by petitioners Petitioners question the issuance of subject search warrants, theorizing upon the absence of any probable cause therefor !hey contend that the surveillance and investigation conducted by NBI agents within the premises involved, prior to the application for the search warrants under controversy, were not sufficient to vest in the applicants personal "nowledge of facts and circumstances showing or indicating the commission of a crime by them #petitioners$

Petitioners& contention is untenable 'ecords show that the NBI agents who conducted the surveillance and investigation testified unequivocably that they saw guns being carried to and unloaded at the two houses searched, and motor vehicles and spare parts were stored therein In fact, applicant (ax B )alvador declared that he personally attended the surveillance together with his witnesses #!)N, (ay *+, *,,-, pp ./0$, and the said witnesses personally saw the weapons being unloaded from motor vehicles and carried to the premises referred to NBI 1gent 1li 2argas testified that he actually saw the firearms being unloaded from a !oyota 3ite/1ce van and brought to the aformentioned house in B4 5omes, Paranaque because he was there inside the compound posing as an appliance agent #!)N, (ay *+, *,,-, pp 6/+$ It is therefore decisively clear that the application for the questioned search warrants was based on the personal "nowledge of the applicants and their witnesses In the case of Central Bank v. Morfe #.- )7'1 +-8$, this 7ourt ruled that the question of whether or not a probable cause exists is one which must be determined in light of the conditions obtaining in given situations In Luna v. Plaza #.9 )7'1 0*-$, it held that the existence of a probable cause depends to a large extent upon the finding or opinion of the judge who conducted the required examination of the applicants and the witnesses 1fter a careful study, the 7ourt discerns no basis for disturbing the findings and conclusions arrived at by the respondent :udge after examining the applicants and witnesses 'espondent judge had the singular opportunity to assess their testimonies and to find out their personal "nowledge of facts and circumstances enough to create a probable cause !he :udge was the one who personally examined the applicants and witnesses and who as"ed searching questions vis/a/vis the applications for search warrants 5e was thus able to observe and determine whether subject applicants and their witnesses gave accurate accounts of the surveillance and investigation they conducted at the premises to be searched In the absence of any showing that respondent judge was recreant of his duties in connection with the personal examination he so conducted on the affiants before him, there is no basis for doubting the reliability and correctness of his findings and impressions Petitioners brand as fatally defective and deficient the procedure followed in the issuance of subject search warrants, reasoning out that the same did not comply with constitutional and statutory requirements !hey fault respondent :udge for allegedly failing to as" specific questions they deem particularly important during the examination of the applicants and their witnesses !o buttress their submission, petitioners invite attention to the following question, to wit? B5ow did you "now that there are unlicensed firearms being "ept by Benjamin @ho at No 6+ Bb 'amona !irona )t , Phase I, B4 5omes, Paranaque, (etro (anilaGC #!)N, 1li 2argas, (ay *+, *,,-, p 6$ Petitioners argue that by propounding the aforequoted question, the respondent :udge assumed that the firearms at the premises to be

searched were unlicensed, instead of as"ing for a detailed account of how the NBI agents came to "now that the firearms being "ept thereat were unlicensed !his stance of petitioners is similarly devoid of any sustainable basis Nothing improper is perceived in the manner the respondent :udge conducted the examination of subject applicants for search warrants and their witnesses 5e personally examined them under oath, and as"ed them searching questions on the facts and circumstances personally "nown to them, in compliance with prescribed procedure and legal requirements It can be gleaned that 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 :udge to determine what questions to as" the witnesses so long as the questions as"ed are germane to the pivot of inquiry / the existence or absence of a probable cause Petitioners claim that subject search warrants are general warrants proscribed by the 7onstitution 1ccording to them, the things to be seized were not described and detailed out, i e the firearms listed were not classified as to size or ma"e, etc 'ecords on hand indicate that the search warrants scrutiny specifically describe the items to be seized thus? )earch %arrant No ,-/** BDnlicensed radio communications equipments such as transmitters, transceivers, handsets, scanners, monitoring device and the li"e C )earch %arrant No ,-/*0 BDnlicensed radio communications equipments such as transmitters, transceivers, handsets, radio communications equipments, scanners, monitoring devices and others C !he use of the phrase Band the li"eC is of no moment !he same did not ma"e the search warrants in question general warrants In Oca v. Maiquez #*6 )7'1 80+$, the 7ourt upheld the warrant although it described the things to be seized as Bboo"s of accounts and allied papers C )ubject )earch %arrant Nos ,-/*. and ,-/*+ refer to? BDnlicensed firearms of various calibers and ammunitions for the said firearms C )earch %arrant No ,-/*6 states? B7hop/chop vehicles and other spare parts C under

!he 7ourt believes, and so holds, that the said warrants comply with 7onstitutional and statutory requirements !he 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 <therwise, it would be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a warrant as they would not "now exactly what "ind of things they are loo"ing for )ince the element of time is very crucial in criminal cases, the effort and time spent in researching on the details to be embodied in the warrant would render the purpose of the search nugatory In the case under consideration, the NBI agents could not have been in a position to "now before hand the exact caliber or ma"e of the firearms to be seized 1lthough the surveillance they conducted did disclose the presence of unlicensed firearms within the premises to be searched, they could not have "nown the particular type of weapons involved before seeing such weapons at close range, which was of course impossible at the time of the filing of the applications for subject search warrants 2erily, the failure to specify detailed descriptions in the warrants did not render the same general 'etired :ustice 'icardo 4rancisco&s boo" on 7riminal Procedure has this useful insight? B1 description of the property to be seized need not be technically accurate nor necessarily preciseF and its nature will necessarily vary according to whether the identity of the property, or its character, is the matter of concern 4urther, the description is required to be specific only so far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow x x xC In People v. Rubio #+8 Phil 0E6$, the 7ourt held that, B But where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, it is not required that a technical description be given, for this would mean that no warrant could issue C It is indeed understandable that the agents of respondent Bureau have no way of "nowing whether the guns they intend to seize are a )mith and %esson or a Beretta !he surveillance conducted could not give the NBI agents a close view of the weapons being transported or brought to the premises to be searched !hus, they could not be expected to "now the detailed particulars of the objects to be seized 7onsequently, the list submitted in the applications for subject search warrants should be adjudged in substantial compliance with the requirements of law Petitioners contend that the searching agents grossly violated the procedure in enforcing the search warrants in question !he petition avers supposedly reprehensible acts perpetrated by the NBI agents 1mong the irregularities alluded to, are? * B!he raiding team failed to perform the following before brea"ing into the premises?

a Properly identify themselves and showing necessary credentials including presentation of the )earch %arrantsF b 4urnishing of )earch %arrants and allowing the occupants of the place to scrutinize the sameF c Hiving ample time to the occupants to voluntarily allow the raiders entry into the place and to search the premises . !he team entered the premises by climbing the fence and by forcing open the main door of the house 0 <nce inside the house, the raiders herded the maids and the sixteen year/old son of defendant @ho into the dining room where they were confined for the duration of the raid In the case of the son, he was gagged with a piece of cloth, his hands were tied behind his bac" and he was made to lie face down 6 Aefendant @ho&s hands were immediately tied behind his bac" #initially with a rag and later with the electric cord of a rechargeable lamp$ and was restrained in a "neeling position with guns pointed at him throughout the duration of the search It was only after the search was completed and the seized items stuffed in carton boxes #and a !/bag$ that his hands were untied so he can sign the search warrants which he was forced to do + 1ll throughout the search, defendant @ho and his companions were "ept in the dining room and continuously intimidated of being shot while the raiders search all the rooms all by themselves and without anybody seeing whatever they were doing C !he question of whether there was abuse in the enforcement of the challanged search warrants is not within the scope of a (otion to >uash In a (otion to >uash, what is assailed is the validity of the issuance of the warrant !he manner of serving the warrant and of effecting the search are not an issue to be resolved here 1s aptly opined and ruled by the respondent :udge, petitioners have remedies under pertinent penal, civil and administrative laws for their problem at hand, which cannot be solved by their present motion to quash 1ccording to petitioner @ho, the premises searched and objects seized during the search sued upon belong to the ;conomic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau #;IIB$ of which he is an agent and therefore, the NBI agents involved had no authority to search the aforesaid premises and to confiscate the objects seized %hether the places searched and objects seized are government properties are questions of fact outside the scope of the petition under consideration !he 7ourt does not see its way clear to rule on such issues

lest it preempts the disposition of the cases filed by the respondent NBI against the herein petitioners 7onsidering that cases for Illegal Possession of 4irearms and ;xplosives and 2iolation of )ection 0 in relation to )ection *6 of 'epublic 1ct No 9+0,, otherwise "nown as the 1nti/7arnapping 1ct of *,8., have been instituted against the petitioners, the petition for mandamus with preliminary and mandatory injunction to return all objects seized and to restrain respondent NBI from using the said objects as evidence, has become moot and academic ;#/R/F2R/, for want of merit and on the ground that it has become moot and academic, the petition at bar is hereby AI)(I));A No pronoucement as to costs 82 2R6/R/6. Davide, Jr., C.J., Romero, Bello illo, Melo, Puno, !itu", #apunan, Mendoza, Pan"aniban, $ui umbin", Pardo, Buena, %onza"a& Re'e , and (nare &)antia"o, JJ., concur.