ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139363. January 17, 2000]

RUSTOM IGNACIO, et al. vs. RTC JUDGE OF CEBU, BR. 24, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2000.

G.R. No. 139363 (Rustom Ignacio and Myrna Ignacio vs. RTC Judge of Cebu, Branch 24, SUPT. Ernesto Mahinay, SPO4 Ricardo S. Cortes, PO3 Marcial Ocampo, PO3 Mario Poblete, Court of Appeals, and People of the Philippines.)

Petitioners question the decision1 Rollo, pp. 42-46. and resolution2 Id., at 65. of the Court of Appeals which upheld the Regional Trial Court's findings that there was probable cause to issue the questioned search warrants against the properties of petitioners. Likewise, they question the findings of the respondent court that the warrants in question are not general warrants.

Petitioners claim that the statements of the applicant and his witnesses did not provide sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause upon which a search warrant could validly issue. They also claim that the manner of questioning made by the judge does not satisfy the requirement of "searching question" as required by law.

We are no persuaded.

Probable cause can be defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the object sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.3 Pendon vs. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 429 [1990]; Quintero vs. NBI, 162 SCRA 467 [1988]; Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 815 (1984). It must be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay.4 Prudente vs. Judge Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69 [1989]; Quintero vs. NBI, supra.

In the case at bar, while SPO4 Ricardo S. Cortes' application for search warrant in connection with the warrants in question stated that he has been duly informed and verily believes that the subject person/s at the above premises is/are in possession and control of properties subject of the offense and that the undersigned has verified the report and found it to be a fact and has therefore reason to believe that a search warrant should be issued, during the questions and answers proceedings, said applicant testified that they had a surveillance for almost two weeks on the gambling dens and that they even acted as bettors.5 Rollo, p. 24. In their disposition, PO3 Marcial Ocampo and PO3 Mario Poblete also confirmed that such surveillance was conducted and that this confirmed the illegal gambling activities in said places and that they even bought an illegal masiao ticket from the usher of Rustom Ignacio who remitted the proceeds to the latter.6 Id., at 26-27. This clearly shows that the applicant has a personal knowledge of the fact that illegal gambling was being conducted in the place they sought to search.

As to the manner of questioning made by the judge to determine probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, we are inclined to believe that indeed the searching questions propounded were adequate to determine whether an offense was really committed and that the place to be searched is the place where the said offense was committed. Thus, in the questions and answers proceeding, the judge was able to find out how the applicant came to know that there was indeed illegal gambling in the place sought to be searched. There was nothing more left for the judge to ask because the facts which could lead a sufficiently discreet person to believe that an offense was committed and that the objects used in the commission of the offense were in the place to be searched was already ascertained.

Petitioners, likewise claim that the warrants in question are general warrants because the judge authorized the police officers to seize and take possession of "other illegal gambling paraphernalia." They argue that the phrases "other illegal gambling paraphernalia" are mere generalizations. The judge should have particularized the items to be searched so as to leave the peace officers no discretion as to what these other illegal gambling paraphernalia are or refer to.7 Id., at 33-34.

We do not agree.

In People vs. Rubio,8 57 Phil. 384 [1932]. See also Benjamin v. Kho and Elizabeth Alindogan vs. Hon. Roberto L. Makalintal and National Bureau of Investigation, G.R. No. 94902-06, April 21, 1999. this Court ruled that the description is required to specific only in so far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow and where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their descriptions must rather be general, it is not required that a technical description be given, as this could mean that no warrant would issue. Thus, the description "fraudulent books, invoices and records" was found sufficient. Again, in Alvarez vs. CFI,9 64 Phil. 33 [1937]. the description "books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as moneylender, charging a usurious rate of interest, in violation of law" was held to be a substantial compliance with the legal provisions of the law because the offender of the law who executed the warrant was thereby placed in a position enabling him to identify the articles.

Unlike in the case of Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, 10 Supra. where the search warrants described the articles sought to be seized in this wise:

1] All printing equipment, paraphernalia, paper, ink, photo equipment, typewriters, cabinets, tables, communications/recording equipment, tape recorders, Dictaphone and the like used and/or connected in the printing of the 'WE FORUM' newspaper and any and all documents/communications, letters and facsimile of prints related to the 'WE FORUM' newspaper,

those issued in this case authorizes only the seizure of the things used in illegal gambling operations. The phrase "other illegal gambling paraphernalia" which follows a specific enumeration of the things to be seized was sufficient to enable the peace officers to search the articles which are used in the illegal gambling operations. It did not authorize them to take everything from the place to be searched.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE