Corro v. Lising
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 29, 1983, respondent Judge Esteban Lising issued Search Warrant No. Q-00002, authorizing the seizure of various printed materials, manuscripts, newspaper dummies, subversive documents, and equipment (typewriters, duplicating machines, etc.) from the premises of the Philippine Times, alleged to be instruments in committing the crime of inciting to sedition under Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by PD 1835. The application was filed by Lt. Col. Berlin Castillo of the Philippine Constabulary Criminal Investigation Service. Procedural History: On November 6, 1984, petitioner Rommel Corro filed an urgent motion to recall the warrant and return the seized properties, arguing that the seized items were not connected with inciting to sedition and that the Agrava Board's findings regarding the Aquino assassination rendered the case moot. Respondent Judge Lising denied the motion on January 28, 1985, stating that the proper forum for withdrawal of articles was the City Fiscal's Office and that the sedition case was not pending before his branch. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, seeking to declare the search warrant null and void, to compel the return of seized properties, to enjoin their use as evidence, and to order the reopening of the Philippine Times' office. The Supreme Court granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the use of the seized items as evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari and mandamus was premature due to the failure to file a motion for reconsideration. Whether probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrant, and whether the search warrant sufficiently described the place to be searched and the things to be seized. Whether the closure of the Philippine Times' office constituted a violation of freedom of the press. Whether the petitioner was guilty of laches in filing the motion to recall the warrant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court declared Search Warrant No. Q-00002 null and void and set it aside. It granted the prayer for a writ of mandatory injunction for the return of all seized properties to the petitioner and ordered the reopening of the padlocked office premises of the Philippine Times.
Ratio Decidendi
On the prematurity of the petition: The Court held that a motion for reconsideration is not always a prerequisite for filing a petition for certiorari, especially when the questions raised have already been squarely passed upon by the lower court, or when the proceeding is tainted with a deprivation of fundamental right to due process, rendering it a nullity. In this case, the issues were presented to and passed upon by the court a quo, thus, the petition was not premature. On probable cause and particularity of description: The Court found that the affidavits supporting the search warrant merely contained conclusions of law, stating that the publication "foments distrust and hatred against the government" and "contains articles tending to incite distrust and hatred for the Government." These general statements, without specifying the alleged subversive materials or the particular articles, do not satisfy the requirement of probable cause. The search warrant itself was overly broad, allowing the seizure of "printed copies of Philippine Times," "manuscripts/drafts," "newspaper dummies," "subversive documents," and even "typewriters, duplicating machines, mimeographing and tape recording machines." This all-embracing language rendered the warrant in the nature of a general warrant, which is constitutionally objectionable as it leaves officers with undue discretion and contravenes the Bill of Rights' requirement for particular description. On the closure of the newspaper office: The Court reiterated the ruling in Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, holding that the closure and sealing of the business office of a newspaper, leading to the discontinuation of its printing and publication, constitutes a form of previous restraint or censorship. Such action is abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Constitution and amounts to a virtual denial of the petitioner's freedom to express themselves in print, which is essential for the enlightenment of the citizenry in a democratic framework. On the issue of laches: The Court found the claim of laches to be incorrect. It noted that petitioner Corro was invited and detained by military operatives shortly after the newspaper was shut down. He was subsequently charged with inciting to sedition and placed under preventive detention. He had to file a petition for habeas corpus, and it was only after his release on recognizance that he filed the motion to recall the warrant. Given these circumstances, the delay in filing the motion was explained and justified, and it could not be presumed that he had abandoned his right to the seized properties.
Main Doctrine
A search warrant is constitutionally objectionable if it is in the nature of a general warrant, allowing seizure of items without particularity, and its issuance is based on mere conclusions of law rather than on specific facts establishing probable cause. Furthermore, the closure of a newspaper office pursuant to such a warrant constitutes prior restraint, violating freedom of the press.