43. BURGOS, SR. VS.

CHIEF OF STAFF had abandoned their right to the possession of the seized property,
thereby refuting the charge of laches against them.
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Same; Estoppel; Evidence; Use of some documents seized as
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP evidence by person from same were seized, in the case filed against him,
No. L-64261. December 26, 1984.* does not estop him from questioning validity of their seizure.—
JOSE BURGOS, SR., JOSE BURGOS, JR., BAYANI SORIANO and J. BURGOS Respondents also submit the theory that since petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr.
MEDIA SERVICES, INC., petitioners, vs. THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED had used and marked as evidence some of the seized documents in
FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, THE Criminal Case No. Q-022872, he is now estopped from challenging the
CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY COMMAND, THE JUDGE validity of the search warrants. We do not follow the logic of respondents.
ADVOCATE GENERAL, ET AL., respondents. These documents lawfully belong to petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. and he can
do whatever he pleases with them, within
Criminal Procedure; Constitutional Law; Appeal; While recourse to 802
the Supreme Court should not be made without first asking for quashal of
the search warrant from the court that issued it, case at bar is being 802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
exempted due to serious and urgent constitutional issues raised and the Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP
public interest generated by the said search legal abounds. The fact that he has used them as evidence does not
_______________ and cannot in any way affect the validity or invalidity of the search
warrants assailed in this petition.
*
 EN BANC. Same; Typographical error in specifying the address to be search not
sufficient to invalidate a search warrant where the address intended to be
801 searched also appears on the face of the warrant.—The defect pointed out
is obviously a typographical error. Precisely, two search warrants were
VOL. 133, DECEMBER 26, 1984 801 applied for and issued because the purpose and intent were to search two
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP distinct premises. It would be quite absurd and illogical for respondent
warrants.—Respondents would have this Court dismiss the petition on judge to have issued two warrants intended for one and the same place.
the ground that petitioners had come to this Court without having Besides, the addresses of the places sought to be searched were
previously sought the quashal of the search warrants before respondent specifically set forth in the application, and since it was Col. Abadilla
judge. Indeed, petitioners, before impugning the validity of the warrants himself who headed the team which executed the search warrants, the
before this Court, should have filed a motion to quash said warrants in the ambiguity that might have arisen by reason of the typographical error is
court that issued them. But this procedural flaw notwithstanding, we take more apparent than real. The fact is that the place for which Search
cognizance of this petition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the Warrant No. 20-82[b] was applied for was 728 Units C & D, RMS Building,
constitutional issued raised, not to mention the public interest generated Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, which address appeared in the opening
by the search of the “We Forum” offices, which was televised in Channel 7 paragraph of the said warrant. Obviously, this is the same place that
and widely publicized in all metropolitan dailies. The existence of this respondent judge had in mind when he issued Warrant No. 20-82 [b].
special circumstance justifies this Court to exercise its inherent power to Same; Constitutional Law; Fact that some of the personal properties
suspend its rules. In the words of the revered Mr. Justice Abad Santos in seized do not belong to the person against whom a search warrant was
the case of C. Vda. de Ordoveza v. Raymundo, “it is always in the power of directed, not a sufficient ground to annul the same.—The above rule (Sec.
the court [Supreme Court] to suspend its rules or to except a particular 1, Rule 126) does not require that the property to be seized should be
case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it x x x”. owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. It may
Same; Laches; Laches defined.—Laches is failure or negligence for an or may not be owned by him. In fact, under subsection [b] of the above-
unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by quoted Section 2, one of the properties that may be seized is stolen
exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is property. Necessarily, stolen property must be owned by one other than
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, the person in whose possession it may be at the time of the search and
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has seizure. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it is sufficient that
abandoned it or declined to assert it. the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession
Same; Same; Laches may not be imputed to a party who tried to of the property sought to be seized, as petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was
exhaust all extrajudicial efforts before going to court to ask for quashal of alleged to have in relation to the articles and property seized under the
search warrant.—Although the reason given by petitioners may not be warrants.
flattering to our judicial system, We find no ground to punish or chastise Same; Same; Property; Machinery bolted to the ground may be
them for an error in judgment. On the contrary, the extrajudicial efforts seized under a search warrant if its owner is not the owner of the land on
exerted by petitioners quite evidently negate the presumption that they
Page 1 of 8
which it has been placed for then it is classified as movable property.— the evidence gathered and collated by our unit clearly shows that the
Neither is there merit in petitioners’ assertion that real properties were premises above-mentioned and the articles and things above-described
seized under the disputed warrants. Under Article 415[5] of the Civil Code were used and are continuously being used for subversive activities in
of the Philippines, “machinery, receptables, conspiracy with, and to promote the objective of, illegal organizations such
803 as the Light-a-Fire Movement, Movement for Free Philippines, and April 6
Movement.”
VOL. 133, DECEMBER 26, 1984 803 Same; Same; The persons wearing to or supporting the application
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP for search warrants must know personally the facts.—In mandating that
instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement “no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by
for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece the judge, x x x after examination under oath or affirmation of the
of land and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or complainant and the witnesses he may produce; the Constitution requires
works” are considered immovable property. In Davao Sawmill Co. v. no less than personal knowledge by the com-plainant or his witnesses of
Castillo where this legal provision was invoked, this Court ruled that the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified. In
machinery which is movable by nature becomes immobilized when placed Alvarez v. Court of First Instance, this Court ruled that “the oath required
by the owner of the tenement, property or plant, but not so when placed must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the
by a tenant, usufructuary, or any other person having only a temporary petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the
right, unless such person acted as the agent of the owner. In the case at committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking
bar, petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land and/or building the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause.” As
on which the machineries were placed. This being the case, the couched, the quoted averment in said joint affidavit filed before
machineries in question, while in fact bolted to the ground remain movable respondent judge hardly meets the test of sufficiency established by this
property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant. Court in Alvarez case.
Same; Same; Words & Phrases; “Probable cause for search” defined. Same; Same; A search warrant in the nature of a general warrant is
—We find petitioners’ thesis impressed with merit. Probable cause for a constitutionally objectionable.—In Stanford v. State of Texas, the search
search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a warrant which authorized the search for ‘books, records, pamphlets, cards,
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures, recordings and other written
committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are instruments concerning the Communist Parties of Texas, and the operation
in the place sought to be searched. of the Communist Party in Texas,” was declared void by the U.S. Supreme
Same; Same; Same; A search warrant against a publisher must Court for being too general. In like manner, directions to “seize any
particularize the alleged criminal or subversive material to be seized.—And evidence in connection with the violation of SDC 13-3703 or otherwise”
when the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper have been held too general, and that portion of a search warrant which
publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive authorized the seizure of any “paraphernalia which could be used to
materials, as in the case at bar, the application and/or its supporting violate Sec. 54-197 of the Connecticut General Statutes [the statute
affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged dealing with the crime of conspiracy]” was held to be a general warrant,
subversive material he has published or is intending to publish. Mere and therefore invalid. The description of the articles sought to be seized
generalization will not suffice. Thus, the broad statement in Col. Abadilla’s under the search warrants in question cannot be characterized differently.
application that petitioner “is in possession or has in his control printing Same; Same; Closure of the premises of a news publishing house
equipment and other paraphernalia, news publications and other constitutes a virtual denial of press freedom.—Such closure is in the nature
documents which were used and are all continuously being used as a of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press
means of committing the offense of subversion punishable under guaranteed under the fundamental law, and constitutes a
Presidential Decree 885, as amended x x x” is a mere conclusion of law 805
and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Bereft of such
particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause, VOL. 133, DECEMBER 26, 1984 805
said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP
and it was a grave error for respondent judge to have done so. virtual denied of petitioners’ freedom to express themselves in print.
Same; Same, Same; Same.—Equally insufficient as basis for the This state of being is patently anathematic to a democratic framework
determination of probable cause is the statement contained in the joint where a free, alert and even militant press is essential for the political
affidavit of Alejandro M. Gutierrez and Pedro U. Tango, “that enlightment and growth of the citizenry.
804 Same; Same.—Respondents would justify the continued sealing of the
printing machines on the ground that they have been sequestered under
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 885, as amended, which authorizes
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP
Page 2 of 8
“the sequestration of the property of any person, natural or artificial, The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
engaged in subversive activities against the government and its duly      Lorenzo M. Tañada, Wigberto E. Tañada, Martiniano Vivo, Augusto
constituted authorities x x x in accordance with implementing rules and Sanchez, Joker P. Arroyo, Jejomar Binay and Rene Saguisag for petitioners.
regulations as may be issued by the Secretary of National Defense.” It is      The Solicitor General for respondents.
doubtful, however, if sequestration could validly be effected in view of the ESCOLIN, J.:
absence of any implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the
Minister of National Defense. Assailed in this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
Same; Same; Property; President Marcos denied the request of the preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction is the validity of two [2]
military to sequester property.—Besides, in the December 10, 1982 issue search warrants issued on December 7, 1982 by respondent Judge Ernani
of the Daily Express, it was reported that no less than President Marcos Cruz-Paño, Executive Judge of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal
himself denied the request of the military authorities to sequester the [Quezon City], under which the premises known as No. 19, Road 3, Project
property seized from petitioners on December 7, 1982. 6, Quezon City, and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue,
Quezon City, business addresses of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We
ABAD SANTOS, concurring: Forum” newspapers, respectively, were searched, and office and printing
machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles
Criminal Procedure; Constitutional Law; The warrants at bar were used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as
issued without probable cause.—The two search warrants were issued well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature
without probable cause. To satisfy the requirement of probable cause a alleged to be in the possession and control of peti-
specific offense must be alleged in the application; abstract averments will 807
not suffice. In the case at bar nothing specifically subversive has been VOL. 133, DECEMBER 26, 1984 807
alleged; stated only is the claim that certain objects were being used as Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP
instruments and means of committing the offense of subversion punishable tioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the “We Forum” newspaper, were
under P.D. No. 885, as amended. There is no mention of any specific seized.
provision of the decree. In the words of Chief Justice Concepcion, “It would Petitioners further pray that a writ of preliminary mandatory and
be legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict anybody” of violating the prohibitory injunction be issued for the return of the seized articles, and
decree without reference to any determinate provision thereof. that respondents, “particularly the Chief Legal Officer, Presidential Security
Same; Same; The warrants at bar are void for lack of particularity.— Command, the Judge Advocate General, AFP, the City Fiscal of Quezon City,
The obvious question is: Why were the documents, pamphlets, leaflets, their representatives, assistants, subalterns, subordinates, substitute or
books, etc. subversive? What did they contain to make them subversive? successors” be enjoined from using the articles thus seized as evidence
There is nothing in the applications nor in the warrants which answers the against petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. and the other accused in Criminal Case
questions. I must, therefore, con- No. Q-022782 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, entitled “People
806 v. Jose Burgos, Jr. et al.”1
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED In our Resolution dated June 21, 1983, respondents were required to
answer the petition. The plea for preliminary mandatory and prohibitory
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP
injunction was set for hearing on June 28, 1983, later reset to July 7, 1983,
clude that the warrants are general warrants which are obnoxious to
on motion of the Solicitor General in behalf of respondents.
the Constitution.
At the hearing on July 7, 1983, the Solicitor General, while opposing
Same; Same; There was nothing subversive in the seized
petitioners’ prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction,
publications.—In point of fact, there was nothing subversive published in
manifested that respondents “will not use the aforementioned articles as
the WE FORUM just as there is nothing subversive which has been
evidence in the aforementioned case until final resolution of the legality of
published in MALAYA which has replaced the former and has the same
the seizure of the aforementioned articles. x x x.” 2 With this manifestation,
content but against which no action has been taken. Conformably with
the prayer for preliminary prohibitory injunction was rendered moot and
existing jurisprudence everything seized pursuant to the warrants should
academic.
be returned to the owners and all of the items are subject to the
Respondents would have this Court dismiss the petition on the ground
exclusionary rule of evidence.
that petitioners had come to this Court without having previously sought
PETITION for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary the quashal of the search warrants before respondent judge. Indeed,
mandatory and prohibitory injunction to review the validity of the issued petitioners, before impugning the validity of the warrants before this Court,
search warrants by the judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon should have filed a motion to quash said warrants in the court that issued
City). them.3 But this procedural flaw notwithstanding, we take cognizance of this

Page 3 of 8
petition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional issues President Marcos, through counsel Antonio Coronel, asking the return at
raised, not to mention the least of the printing equipment and vehicles. And after such a letter had
_______________ been sent, through Col. Balbino V. Diego, Chief Intelligence and Legal
Officer of the Presidential Security Command, they were further
1
 Petition, p. 44, Rollo. encouraged to hope that the latter would yield the desired results.
2
 Manifestation and Opposition, p. 75, Rollo. “After waiting in vain for five [5] months, petitioners finally decided to
3
 Templo v. Dela Cruz, 60 SCRA 295. come to Court.” [pp. 123-124, Rollo]

808 Although the reason given by petitioners may not be flattering to our
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED judicial system, We find no ground to punish or chastise them for an error
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP in judgment. On the contrary, the extrajudicial efforts exerted by
public interest generated by the search of the “We Forum” offices, which petitioners quite evidently negate the presumption that they had
was televised in Channel 7 and widely publicized in all metropolitan dailies. abandoned their right to the possession of the seized property, thereby
The existence of this special circumstance justifies this Court to exercise its refuting the charge of laches against them.
inherent power to suspend its rules. In the words of the revered Mr. Justice Respondents also submit the theory that since petitioner Jose Burgos,
Abad Santos in the case of C. Vda. de Ordoveza v. Raymundo,4 “it is always Jr. had used and marked as evidence some of the seized documents in
in the power of the court [Supreme Court] to suspend its rules or to except Criminal Case No. Q-022872, he is now estopped from challenging the
a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice validity of the search warrants. We do not follow the logic of respondents.
require it x x x”. These documents lawfully belong to petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. and he can
Respondents likewise urge dismissal of the petition on ground of do whatever he pleases with them, within legal bounds. The fact that he
laches. Considerable stress is laid on the fact that while said search has used them as evidence does not and cannot in any way affect the
warrants were issued on December 7, 1982, the instant petition impugning validity or invalidity of the search warrants assailed in this petition.
the same was filed only on June 16, 1983 or after the lapse of a period of Several and diverse reasons have been advanced by petitioners to
more than six [6] months. nullify the search warrants in question.
Laches is failure or negligence for an unreasonable and unexplained 1. Petitioners fault respondent judge for his alleged failure to conduct
length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or an examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his
should have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right witnesses, as mandated by the above-quoted constitutional provision as
within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled well as Sec. 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. 6 This objection, however,
to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. 5 may properly be considered
Petitioners, in their Consolidated Reply, explained the reason for the ________________
delay in the filing of the petition thus:
6
“Respondents should not find fault, as they now do [p. 1, Answer, p. 3,  Sec. 4, Rule 126, Rules of Court provides:
Manifestation] with the fact that the Petition was filed on June 16, 1983, Sec. 4. Examination of the Applicant.—The municipal or city judge
more than half a year after the petitioners’ premises had been raided. must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine on oath or
“The climate of the times has given petitioners no other choice. If they affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take
had waited this long to bring their case to court, it was because they tried their deposition in writing and attach them to the record, in addition to any
at first to exhaust other remedies. The events of the past eleven [11] years affidavits presented to them.
had taught them that everything in this country, from release of public
funds to release of detained persons from custody, has become a matter of 810
executive benevolence or largesse. 810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
“Hence, as soon as they could, petitioners, upon suggestion of persons Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP
close to the President, like Fiscal Flaminiano, sent a letter to moot and academic, as petitioners themselves conceded during the
_______________ hearing on August 9, 1983, that an examination had indeed been
conducted by respondent judge of Col. Abadilla and his witnesses.
4
 63 Phil. 275. 2. Search Warrants No. 20-82[a] and No. 20-82[b] were used to search
5
 Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29. two distinct places: No. 19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City and 784 Units C
& D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, respectively. Objection is
809 interposed to the execution of Search Warrant No. 20-82[b] at the latter
VOL. 133, DECEMBER 26, 1984 809 address on the ground that the two search warrants pinpointed only one
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP place where petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was allegedly keeping and
concealing the articles listed therein, i.e., No. 19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon
Page 4 of 8
City. This assertion is based on that portion of Search Warrant No. 20-82[b] 2. [b]Property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the
which states: offense; and
“Which have been used, and are being used as instruments and means of 3. [c]Property used or intended to be used as the means of
committing the crime of subversion penalized under P.D. 885 as amended committing an offense.
and he is keeping and concealing the same at 19 Road 3, Project 6,
Quezon City.” The above rule does not require that the property to be seized should be
owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. It may
The defect pointed out is obviously a typographical error. Precisely, two
or may not be owned by him. In
search warrants were applied for and issued because the purpose and
_______________
intent were to search two distinct premises. It would be quite absurd and
illogical for respondent judge to have issued two warrants intended for one
and the same place. Besides, the addresses of the places sought to be FORUM’ with office address at 784 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon
searched were specifically set forth in the application, and since it was Col. Avenue, Quezon City, has in his possession and control at said address the
Abadilla himself who headed the team which executed the search following: x x x.:
8
warrants, the ambiguity that might have arisen by reason of the  68 Am. Jur. 2d., 729.
typographical error is more apparent than real. The fact is that the place
812
for which Search Warrant No. 20-82[b] was applied for was 728 Units C &
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, which address appeared in
the opening paragraph of the said warrant.7 Obvious- Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP
________________ fact, under subsection [b] of the above-quoted Section 2, one of the
properties that may be seized is stolen property. Necessarily, stolen
7 property must be owned by one other than the person in whose possession
 The opening paragraph of Search Warrant No. 20-82 [b] reads: “It
it may be at the time of the search and seizure. Ownership, therefore, is of
appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after examination under
no consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against whom the
oath of Maj. Alejandro M. Gutierrez and Lt. Pedro U. Tango, that there are
warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be
good and sufficient reason to believe that Jose Burgos, Jr. Publisher-Editor
seized, as petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was alleged to have in relation to the
of ‘WE
articles and property seized under the warrants.
811 4. Neither is there merit in petitioners’ assertion that real properties
VOL. 133, DECEMBER 26, 1984 811 were seized under the disputed warrants. Under Article 415[5] of the Civil
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP Code of the Philippines, “machinery, receptables, instruments or
implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or
ly, this is the same place that respondent judge had in mind when he
works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and
issued Warrant No. 20-82 [b].
which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works” are
In the determination of whether a search warrant describes the
considered immovable property. In Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo 9 where
premises to be searched with sufficient particularity, it has been held “that
this legal provision was invoked, this Court ruled that machinery which is
the executing officer’s prior knowledge as to the place intended in the
movable by nature becomes immobilized when placed by the owner of the
warrant is relevant. This would seem to be especially true where the
tenement, property or plant, but not so when placed by a tenant,
executing officer is the affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had issued,
usufructuary, or any other person having only a temporary right, unless
and when he knows that the judge who issued the warrant intended the
such person acted as the agent of the owner.
building described in the affidavit. And it has also been said that the
In the case at bar, petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land
exediting officer may look to the affidavit in the official court file to resolve
and/or building on which the machineries were placed. This being the case,
an ambiguity in the warrant as to the place to be searched.” 8
the machineries in question, while in fact bolted to the ground remain
3. Another ground relied upon to annul the search warrants is the fact
movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant.
that although the warrants were directed against Jose Burgos, Jr. alone,
5. The questioned search warrants were issued by respondent judge
articles belonging to his co-petitioners Jose Burgos, Sr., Bayani Soriano and
upon application of Col. Rolando N. Abadilla, Intelligence Officer of the P.C.
the J. Burgos Media Services, Inc. were seized.
Metrocom.10 The application was accompanied by the Joint Affidavit of
Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, enumerates the personal
Alejandro M. Gutierrez and Pedro U. Tango, 11 members of the Metrocom
properties that may be seized under a search warrant, to wit:
Intelligence and Security Group under Col. Abadilla which conducted a
“Sec. 2. Personal Property to be seized.—A search warrant may be issued
surveillance of the premises prior to the filing of the application for the
for the search and seizure of the following personal property:
search warrants on December 7, 1982.
1. [a]Property subject of the offense;
_______________
Page 5 of 8
 9
 61 Phil. 709. promote the objective of, illegal organizations such as the Light-a-Fire
10
 Annex “C”, Petition, pp. 51-52, Rollo. Movement, Movement for Free Philippines, and April 6 Movement.” 13
11
 Annex “B”, Petition, pp. 53-54, Rollo. In mandating that “no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined by the judge, x x x after examination under oath or
813 affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; 14 the
VOL. 133, DECEMBER 26, 1984 813 Constitution requires no less than personal knowledge by the complainant
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant
It is contended by petitioners, however, that the above-mentioned may be justified. In Alvarez v. Court of First Instance, 15 this Court ruled that
documents could not have provided sufficient basis for the finding of a “the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal
probable cause upon which a warrant may validly issue in accordance with knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof
Section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution which provides: is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the
“SEC. 3. x x x and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of
upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other probable cause.” As couched, the quoted averment in said joint affidavit
responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under filed before respondent judge hardly meets the test of sufficiency
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, established by this Court in Alvarez case.
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or Another factor which makes the search warrants under consideration
things to be seized.” constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general
warrants. The search warrants describe the articles sought to be seized in
We find petitioners’ thesis impressed with merit. Probable cause for a this wise:
search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a 1. “1]All printing equipment, paraphernalia, paper, ink, photo
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been equipment, typewriters, cabinets, tables,
committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are communications/recording equipment, tape recorders, dictaphone
in the place sought to be searched. And when the search warrant applied and the like used and/or connected in the printing of the ‘WE
for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with FORUM’ newspaper and any and all documents/communications,
the publication of subversive materials, as in the case at bar, the letters and facsimile of prints related to the ‘WE FORUM’
application and/or its supporting affidavits must contain a specification, newspaper.
stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published 2. 2]Subversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, and
or is intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice. Thus, the
broad statement in Col. Abadilla’s application that petitioner “is in
possession or has in his control printing equipment and other _______________
paraphernalia, news publications and other documents which were used
13
and are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense  Annex “D”, Petition, p. 54, Rollo.
14
of subversion punishable under Presidential Decree 885, as amended x x  Sec. 3, Art. IV, 1973 Constitution.
15
x”12 is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirements of  64 Phil. 33.
probable cause. Bereft of such particulars as would justify a finding of the
existence of probable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for the 815
issuance of a search warrant and it was a grave error for respondent judge VOL. 133, DECEMBER 26, 1984 815
to have done so. Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP
Equally insufficient as basis for the determination of probable cause is 1. other publications to promote the objectives and purposes of the
the statement contained in the joint affidavit of subversive organizations known as Movement for Free
_______________ Philippines, Light-a-Fire Movement and April 6 Movement; and,
2. 3]Motor vehicles used in the distribution/circulation of the ‘WE
12 FORUM’ and other subversive materials and propaganda, more
 Annex “C”, Petition, p. 51, Rollo.
particularly,
814
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 1. 1]Toyota-Corolla, colored yellow with Plate No. NKA 892;
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP 2. 2]DATSUN pick-up colored white with Plate No. NKV 969;
Alejandro M. Gutierrez and Pedro U. Tango, “that the evidence gathered 3. 3]A delivery truck with Plate No. NBS 542;
and collated by our unit clearly shows that the premises above-mentioned 4. 4)TOYOTA-TAMARAW, colored white with Plate No. PBP 665; and,
and the articles and things above-described were used and are 5. 5)TOYOTA Hi-Lux, pick-up truck with Plate No. NGV 472 with
continuously being used for subversive activities in conspiracy with, and to marking ‘Bagong Silang.’ ”
Page 6 of 8
In Stanford v. State of Texas,16 the search warrant which authorized the of any implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the Minister of
search for ‘books, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, National Defense.
pictures, recordings and other written instruments concerning the Besides, in the December 10, 1982 issue of the Daily Express, it was
Communist Parties of Texas, and the operations of the Community Party in reported that no less than President Marcos himself denied the request of
Texas,” was declared void by the U.S. Supreme Court for being too the military authorities to sequester the property seized from petitioners
general. In like manner, directions to “seize any evidence in connection on December 7, 1982. Thus:
with the violation of SDC 13-3703 or otherwise” have been held too “The President denied a request filed by government prosecutors for
general, and that portion of a search warrant which authorized the seizure sequestration of the WE FORUM newspaper and its
of any “paraphernalia which could be used to violate Sec. 54-197 of the ________________
Connecticut General Statutes [the statute dealing with the crime of
conspiracy]” was held to be a general warrant, and therefore invalid. 17 The 18
 Sec. 9. Art. IV of the Constitution.
description of the articles sought to be seized under the search warrants in
question cannot be characterized differently. 817
In the Stanford case, the U.S. Supreme Court calls to mind a notable VOL. 133, DECEMBER 26, 1984 817
chapter in English history: the era of disaccord between the Tudor Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP
Government and the English Press, when “Officers of the Crown were given printing presses, according to Information Minister Gregorio S. Cendaña.
roving commissions to search where they pleased in order to suppress and “On the basis of court orders, government agents went to the We
destroy the Forum offices in Quezon City and took a detailed inventory of the
_______________ equipment and all materials in the premises.
“Cendaña said that because of the denial, the newspaper and its
16
 379 U.S. 476, 13 L ed 2nd 431. equipment remain at the disposal of the owners, subject to the discretion
17
 68 Am. Jur. 2d, pp. 736-737. of the court.”19

816 That the property seized on December 7, 1982 had not been sequestered
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED is further confirmed by the reply of then Foreign Minister Carlos P. Romulo
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP to the letter dated February 10, 1983 of U.S. Congressman Tony P. Hall
literature of dissent both Catholic and Puritan.” Reference herein to such addressed to President Marcos, expressing alarm over the “WE FORUM”
historical episode would not be relevant for it is not the policy of our case.20 In this reply dated February 11, 1983, Minister Romulo stated:
government to suppress any newspaper or publication that speaks with “2. Contrary to reports, President Marcos turned down the
“the voice of non-conformity” but poses no clear and imminent danger to recommendation of our authorities to close the paper’s printing facilities
state security. and confiscate the equipment and materials it uses.” 21
As heretofore stated, the premises searched were the business and
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Search Warrants Nos. 20-82[a] and 20-82[b]
printing offices of the “Metropolitan Mail” and the “We Forum newspapers.
issued by respondent judge on December 7, 1982 are hereby declared null
As a consequence of the search and seizure, these premises were
and void and are accordingly set aside. The prayer for a writ of mandatory
padlocked and sealed, with the further result that the printing and
injunction for the return of the seized articles is hereby granted and all
publication of said newspapers were discontinued.
articles seized thereunder are hereby ordered released to petitioners. No
Such closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship
costs.
abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental
SO ORDERED.
law,18 and constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners’ freedom to express
     Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Melencio-
themselves in print. This state of being is patently anathematic to a
Herrera, Plana Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
democratic framework where a free, alert and even militant press is
     Teehankee, J., I concur with the main opinion of Mr. Justice Escolin
essential for the political enlightenment and growth of the citizenry.
and the concurrence of Mr. Justice Abad Santos.
Respondents would justify the continued sealing of the printing
_______________
machines on the ground that they have been sequestered under Section 8
of Presidential Decree No. 885, as amended, which authorizes “the 19
sequestration of the property of any person, natural or artificial, engaged  Annex “K”, Consolidated Reply, p. 175, Rollo.
20
in subversive activities against the government and its duly constituted  Annex “L”, Consolidated Reply, p. 178, Rollo.
21
authorities x x x in accordance with implementing rules and regulations as  Annex “M”, Consolidated Reply, p. 179, Rollo.
may be issued by the Secretary of National Defense.” It is doubtful,
818
however, if sequestration could validly be effected in view of the absence

Page 7 of 8
 818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED In point of fact, there was nothing subversive published in the WE
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP FORUM just as there is nothing subversive which has been published in
     Aquino, J., no part. MALAYA which has replaced the former and has the same content but
     Abad Santos, J., see concurring opinion. against which no action has been taken.
Conformably with existing jurisprudence everything seized pursuant to
ABAD SANTOS, J.: the warrants should be returned to the owners and all of the items are
subject to the exclusionary rule of evidence.
I am glad to give my concurrence to the ponencia of Mr. Justice Escolin. At Search warrants null and void.
the same time I wish to state my own reasons for holding that the search Notes.—General search warrants are outlawed because they place the
warrants which are the subject of the petition are utterly void. sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and
The action against WE FORUM was a naked suppression of press correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace
freedom for the search warrants were issued in gross violation of the officers. (Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383.)
Constitution. The Constitution provides that no warrant shall issue but upon probable
The Constitutional requirement which is expressed in Section 3, Article cause, to be determined by the judge, and that the warrant shall
IV, stresses two points, namely: “(1) that no warrant shall issue but upon particularly describe the things to be seized. (Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA
probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in 383.)
said provision; and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the The remedy for questioning the validity of a search warrant, may be
things to be seized.” (Stonehill vs. Diokno, 126 Phil. 738, 747: 20 SCRA sought in the court of first instance that issued it, not in the sala of another
383 [1967].) judge and not through replevin. (Pagkalinawan vs. Gomez, 21 SCRA 1275.)
Any search warrant is conducted in disregard of the points mentioned
above will result in wiping “out completely one of the most fundamental ——o0o——
rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it would place the sanctity of the
domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the 820
mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.” (Ibid., p. 748.) © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
The two search warrants were issued without probable cause. To satisfy
the requirement of probable cause a specific offense must be alleged in
the application; abstract averments will not suffice. In the case at bar
nothing specifically subversive has been alleged; stated only is the claim
that certain objects were being used as instruments and means of
committing the offense of subversion punishable under P.D. No. 885, as
amended. There is no mention of any specific provision of the decree. In
the words of Chief Justice Concepcion, “It would be legal heresy, of the
highest order, to convict anybody” of violating the decree without
reference to any determinate provision thereof.
The search warrants are also void for lack of particularity.
819
VOL. 133, DECEMBER 26, 1984 819
Burgos. Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP
Both search warrants authorize Col. Rolando Abadilla to seize and take
possession, among other things, of the following:
“Subversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books and other publication
to promote the objectives and purposes of the subversive organizations
known as Movement for Free Philippines, Light-a-Fire Movement and April 6
Movement.”

The obvious question is: Why were the documents, pamphlets, leaflets,
books, etc. subversive? What did they contain to make them subversive?
There is nothing in the applications nor in the warrants which answers the
questions. I must, therefore, conclude that the warrants
are general warrants which are obnoxious to the Constitution.

Page 8 of 8