103 Roan v. Gonzales

Topic: Search and Seizure > Types > Through Search before him.
Warrant > Requisites for Issuance > Determining  Two days later, Josefino Roan’s house was searched but none of the
Probable Cause > Process articles listed in the warrant was discovered.
o However, the officers who conducted the search found in the
Case No.: G.R. No. 71410. November 25, 1986.
premises one Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets
Case Name: Roan v Gonzales which they confiscated.
o They are now the bases of the charge against the petitioner.
Full Case Name: JOSEFINO S. ROAN, petitioner, vs. THE
HONORABLE ROMULO T. GONZALES,
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ISSUE
MARINDUQUE, BRANCH XXXVIII; THE
1. Whether the Respondent Judge failed to comply with the proper
PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF MARINDUQUE; THE
procedure in issuing the search warrant.
PROVINCIAL COMMANDER, PC-INP
MARINDUQUE, respondents. RATIO DECIDENDI
Ponente: Cruz, J. YES. The inclusion of the requirement for the "examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce" was a
Doctrine: The examination must be probing and exhaustive, not
refinement proposed by Delegate Vicente J. Francisco in the1934
merely routinary or pro-forma, if the claimed
Constitutional Convention for the purpose of strengthening of the guaranty
probable cause is to be established. The examining
against unreasonable searches and seizures.
magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the
affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent Implementing this requirement, the Rules of Court provided in what was then
and justification of the application. Rule 126:
. SEC. 4. Examination of the applicant. — The municipal or city judge must,

before issuing the warrant, personally examine on oath or affirmation the
RELEVANT FACTS
complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in
 May 10, 1984 – the search warrant in question was issued by the Judge writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented
Romulo Gonzales. to him.
o The application for the said search warrant was personally
By Judge Gonzalez’s own account, what he did was question Captain Quillosa
filed by PC Capt. Mauro Quillosa. There were two witnesses,
on the contents of his affidavit only "to ascertain, among others, if he knew
Esmael Morada and Jesus Tohilida, who presented to
and understood the same," and only because "the application was not yet
respondent judge their respective affidavits taken by police
investigator Pat. Josue V. Lining. subscribed and swom to." The suggestion is that he would not have asked any
o At the time of application, the application was not yet questions at all if the affidavit had already been completed when it was
subscribed and sworn to. Judge Gonzales proceeded to submitted to him. In any case, he did not ask his own searching questions. He
examine Captain Quillosa on the contents of the affidavits to limited himself to the contents of the affidavit. He did not take the applicant's
ascertain, among others, if he knew and understood the same. deposition in writing and attach them to the record, together with the affidavit
o Afterwards, Quillosa subscribed and swore to the same presented to him.
It is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive, not May 10, 1984, is hereby declared null and void and accordingly set aside.
merely routinary or pro-forma, if the claimed probable cause is to be Our restraining order of August 6,1985, is made permanent. No costs.
established. The examining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of
the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of
the application. SO ORDERED.
A study of the depositions taken from witnesses Esmael Morada and Jesus NO SEPARATE OPINION
Tohilida, who both claimed to be "intelligence informers," shows that they
were in the main a mere restatement of their allegations in their affidavits,
except that they were made in the form of answers to the questions put to them
by the respondent judge. Significantly, the meaningful remark made by
Tohilida that they were suspicious of the petitioner because he was a follower
of the opposition candidate in the forthcoming election did not excite the
respondent judge's own suspicions. This should have put him on guard as to
the motivations of the witnesses and alerted him to possible
misrepresentations from them.
One may well wonder why it did not occur to the respondent judge to ask how
the witness could be so certain even as to the caliber of the guns, or how far he
was from the window, or whether it was on the first floor or a second floor, or
why his presence was not noticed at all, or if the acts related were really done
openly, in the full view of the witnesses, considering that these acts were
against the law. These would have been judicious questions but they were
injudiciously omitted. Instead, the declarations of the witnesses were readily
accepted and the search warrant sought was issued forthwith.
The above-discussed defects have rendered the search warrant invalid.

Prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the search is valid. In this
case, it was not because there was no valid search warrant and absent of such
warrant, the right thereto was not validly waived by the petitioner. In short,
the military officers who entered the petitioner’s premises had no right to be
there and therefore had no right to seize the pistol and bullets.
DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, Search Warrant No. 1-84 issued by the respondent judge on

103 Roan v. Gonzales

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

103 Roan v. Gonzales

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

103 Roan v. Gonzales

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic: Search and Seizure > Types > Through Search before him.

. SEC. 4. Examination of the applicant. — The municipal or city judge must,

The above-discussed defects have rendered the search warrant invalid.

WHEREFORE, Search Warrant No. 1-84 issued by the respondent judge on

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.