People v. Maderazo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from applications for search warrants filed by Police Superintendent Jaycees De Sagun Tolentino before the Regional Trial Court of Calapan City. These applications were based on information from barangay officials Loida Tapere Roco and Rexcel Lozano Rivera, who alleged that Stanley Maderazo, along with others, was keeping dangerous drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearms in his rented residence. The barangay officials claimed Maderazo admitted to possessing these items after his arrest for attempted murder. Subsequently, Maderazo, along with others, was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearms based on items seized from the residence. Procedural History: Maderazo filed a Motion to Quash the search warrants, arguing they were issued without probable cause as the applicant relied on hearsay information and lacked personal knowledge. He also contended that the police surveillance claims were unsubstantiated. The trial court denied this motion. Maderazo then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court. The CA granted the petition, nullified the search warrants, and declared the seized items inadmissible as evidence. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, as petitioner, filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They assail the CA's decision, raising the sole issue of whether the CA erred in ruling that the issuing judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Maderazo's motion to quash the search warrants. The petitioner argues that the sworn statements of the witnesses, despite the absence of a transcript of stenographic notes, constitute sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause, and that Maderazo's admission provided this probable cause. The petitioner contends that the CA erred in finding the preliminary examination to be merely routinary and not probing enough.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Judge Leynes committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the search warrants. Whether there was probable cause for the issuance of Search Warrant Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015, specifically regarding the judge's examination of witnesses and the requirement of personal knowledge. Whether the search warrants were issued in compliance with the constitutional and procedural requirements for their issuance, particularly concerning illegal possession of firearms. Whether the items seized pursuant to the search warrants are admissible in evidence.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the trial judge failed to conduct a probing and exhaustive inquiry as mandated by the Constitution and Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. The preliminary examinations of the witnesses, Roco and Rivera, revealed identical questions and answers, indicating a routinary rather than a searching examination. On the issue of probable cause and the judge's examination of witnesses and the requirement of personal knowledge: The questions propounded did not probe into the witnesses' personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances constituting probable cause, nor did they elicit details on how the alleged admission was obtained or how the surveillance was conducted. The Court reiterated that the determination of probable cause requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and witnesses through searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, to ascertain facts personally known to them. The reliance on the alleged admission of Maderazo, without further probing into its circumstances, and the unsubstantiated claims of surveillance, rendered the finding of probable cause dubious. The Court emphasized that the facts and circumstances forming the basis for probable cause must be based on the personal knowledge of the applicant and his witnesses, not on hearsay information alone. In this case, Tolentino's application and the witnesses' testimonies were inadequate because they did not demonstrate personal knowledge of Maderazo's alleged possession of illegal drugs, paraphernalia, or firearms. The witnesses themselves relied on Maderazo's alleged admission, and there was no indication that they personally saw the items inside the premises. The Court stressed that absent personal knowledge, a search warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and is a nullity. On the issuance of Search Warrant No. 10-2015 for illegal possession of firearms: The Court noted that for illegal possession of firearms, probable cause requires belief that a person possesses a firearm and lacks a license to do so. In this case, neither the applicant nor the witnesses had personal knowledge that Maderazo lacked a license to possess the firearm. No certification from the appropriate government agency was presented to prove this lack of license. The Court cited Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) v. Asuncion and Del Rosario v. People, holding that possession of a firearm is unlawful only if the required permit or license is absent, and the absence of such license must be established as part of probable cause. On the admissibility of seized items: The Court reiterated the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Since the search warrants were void for having been issued without probable cause and in violation of constitutional and procedural requirements, any articles seized in the course of the search are inadmissible in evidence against Maderazo. The Court concluded that the police officers had no right to search the premises without valid warrants, making their entry illegal and the seized items inadmissible for any purpose.
Main Doctrine
A search warrant issued without probable cause, determined through the judge's personal examination of the complainant and witnesses via searching questions and answers, is void, and any evidence seized thereunder is inadmissible.