JOSEFINO ROAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE ROMULO T. GONZALES, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MARINDUQUE, BRANCH XXXVIII; THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF MARINDUQUE; THE PR…

Roan versus Gonzales

The Case

This is Roan versus Gonzales, a petition brought by Josefino Roan against the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Marinduque, the Provincial Fiscal of Marinduque, and the military officers who searched his home. Roan asks the Supreme Court to annul a search warrant, to permanently enjoin the use of the seized articles against him, and to declare that the search of his house violated the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. The case matters because it is a compact lesson in every essential requisite of a valid search warrant: probable cause personally determined by the judge, the sworn examination of the complainant and his witnesses, the taking of their depositions in writing, and a probing rather than routinary inquiry. It also teaches when a waiver is no waiver at all, and why the fact that an offense is malum prohibitum — wrong merely because it is prohibited — does not authorize a warrantless seizure.

Procedural History

The respondent judge issued the challenged search warrant on the tenth of May, 1984. Roan's house was searched two days later. Roan then came directly to the Supreme Court by petition, invoking the constitutional provisions on searches and seizures and asking that the use of the seized articles in his prosecution for illegal possession of firearms be restrained and thereafter permanently enjoined. The Court granted a temporary restraining order. The respondents raised procedural objections, among them that Roan should first have moved to quash the warrant before the respondent judge. The Court nonetheless took cognizance of the petition, citing its earlier ruling in Burgos versus Chief of Staff that it will act despite such a procedural flaw in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional issues raised.

Facts

On the tenth of May, 1984, a Philippine Constabulary captain personally filed an application for a search warrant before the respondent judge, accompanied by two witnesses, Esmael Morada and Jesus Tohilida, who presented their respective affidavits. The application was not yet subscribed and sworn to, so the judge questioned the captain on its contents, to ascertain whether he knew and understood the same, and then had him subscribe and swear to it. The judge did not take the captain's deposition in writing. He explained that he saw no need to do so because the applicant was relying on information supplied by the two witnesses, whose statements had already been taken.

Two days later, the petitioner's house was searched. None of the articles listed in the warrant was discovered. The officers, however, found on the premises one Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets, which they confiscated. These became the bases of the charge of illegal possession of firearms against Roan. The respondents later argued that Roan had voluntarily submitted to the search and manifested his conformity in writing, and that the pistol and bullets, being illegal per se under the decree punishing illegal possession of firearms, could be taken even without a warrant.

Issues

• Whether or not the search warrant is valid, considering that the respondent judge did not take the deposition in writing of the complainant and attach it to the record.
• Whether or not the examination conducted by the respondent judge of the complainant and his witnesses was sufficient to establish probable cause.
• Whether or not the petitioner validly waived his objection to the search.
• Whether or not the pistol and bullets, the subject of a malum prohibitum offense, may be seized without a valid warrant.
• Whether or not the seized articles are admissible in evidence against the petitioner.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Article Four of the 1973 Constitution provides:

Section 3. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is the source of every requisite the Court enforces against the warrant.

Section 4 of the same Article provides:

Section 4. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety and order require otherwise. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

This is the exclusionary principle that bars the use of the pistol and bullets against the petitioner.

Section 4 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, as then worded, provides:

Section 4. Examination of the applicant. The municipal or city judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him.

This is the exact duty the respondent judge failed to perform.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the warrant is tainted with illegality. The judge did not take the applicant's deposition in writing and attach it to the record together with the affidavit. Quoting Mata versus Bayona, the Court declared:

Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false.

On the second issue, the Court held that even the depositions of the two witnesses were insufficient. The examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary or pro forma. The witnesses merely restated their affidavits in answer to the judge's questions. One of them remarked that they were suspicious of the petitioner because he was a follower of the opposition candidate, and this did not excite the judge's own suspicions. The judge accepted without question the claim that eight men openly delivered arms in the petitioner's house, seen through an open window, with the witness even certain of the calibers of the guns. The judge asked none of the judicious questions that should have tested these claims.

On the third issue, the Court refused to find a waiver. What the record showed was pressure exerted by the military authorities, who practically coerced the petitioner into signing the supposed waiver as a guaranty against a later challenge. Confronted with the armed presence of the military and the presumptive authority of a judicial writ, the petitioner had no choice but to submit.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the search is valid. It does not follow that because an offense is malum prohibitum, the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. A search warrant is still necessary. The military officers who entered the premises had no right to be there and therefore no right to seize the pistol and bullets. None of the accepted exceptions to the warrant requirement applied, for the articles were deliberately sought and were not in plain view.

On the fifth issue, the Court applied the exclusionary principle. The pistol and bullets cannot be used as evidence against the petitioner in the criminal action for illegal possession of firearms, though pending resolution of that case they must remain in custodia legis, in the custody of the court.

Doctrine

A search warrant is valid only if probable cause is determined by the judge after a probing and exhaustive examination under oath of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, with their depositions taken in writing and attached to the record. Mere affidavits are not sufficient. A warrant issued on the basis of hearsay, without the applicant's own deposition, is invalid. A waiver of the constitutional objection must be voluntary; submission under the armed presence of the military is intimidation, not consent. The fact that an offense is malum prohibitum does not make its subject illegal per se or dispense with the warrant requirement. Finally, evidence obtained in violation of the guarantee is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Disposition

The Court declared Search Warrant Number 1-84 null and void and set it aside, made its restraining order permanent, and ordered that the pistol and bullets be excluded as evidence against the petitioner.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a search warrant stands or falls on the judge's personal, probing examination reduced to written depositions attached to the record, and no waiver signed under the guns of the military can cure its absence. Examiners use this case on the requisites of a valid search warrant, on the insufficiency of mere affidavits, and on the exclusionary rule as applied to mala prohibita.