Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 102 views

    5 Silva V Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC Negros Oriental

    Uploaded by

    Cedrick
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that Search Warrant No. 1 was invalid because the judge failed to properly examine the applicant and witnesses to determine probable cause as required by the Constitution and rules on search warrants. 2. Specifically, the application and depositions merely contained yes or no questions in blanks without any probing questions. 3. The Court also found the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the motion seeking return of money seized that was not within the scope of the search warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    5 Silva V Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC Negros Oriental

    Uploaded by

    Cedrick
    102 views2 pages
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that Search Warrant No. 1 was invalid because the judge failed to properly examine the applicant and witnesses to determine probable cause as required by the Constitution and rules on search warrants. 2. Specifically, the application and depositions merely contained yes or no questions in blanks without any probing questions. 3. The Court also found the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the motion seeking return of money seized that was not within the scope of the search warrant.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    5 Silva v Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC Negros Oriental

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The Supreme Court ruled that Search Warrant No. 1 was invalid because the judge failed to properly examine the applicant and witnesses to determine probable cause as required by the Constitution and rules on search warrants. 2. Specifically, the application and depositions merely contained yes or no questions in blanks without any probing questions. 3. The Court also found the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the motion seeking return of money seized that was not within the scope of the search warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    102 views2 pages

    5 Silva V Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC Negros Oriental

    Uploaded by

    Cedrick
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that Search Warrant No. 1 was invalid because the judge failed to properly examine the applicant and witnesses to determine probable cause as required by the Constitution and rules on search warrants. 2. Specifically, the application and depositions merely contained yes or no questions in blanks without any probing questions. 3. The Court also found the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the motion seeking return of money seized that was not within the scope of the search warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    University of the Philippines College of Law

    KS D2021

    Topic Procedure for issuance of a search warrant


    Case No. October 21, 1991
    Case Name Silva v Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC Negros Oriental
    Ponente Fernan, C.J.

    RELEVANT FACTS

    13 June 1986: M/Sgt. Ranulfo Villamor Jr, chief of PC Narcom Detachment in Dumaguete filed an Application for
    Search Warrant with RTC Dumaguete against Nicomedes Silva and Marlon Silva (petitioners).

    Application included Deposition of Witness by Pfc. Alcoran and Pat. Quindo dated 13 June 1986.

    Judge Nickarter Ontal, then presiding judge issued Search Warrant No. 1 directing police to search room of
    Marlon in residence of Nicomedes for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act and to seize and take possession the
    following: Marijuana dried leaves, cigarettes, and joint and to bring them the judge.

    In the course of the search, the officers also seized money belonging to Antonieta Silva amounting to P1,231.40.

    Antonieta filed motion for the return of the said amount on the grounds that it is not included in the items to be
    seized as indicated in the search warrant and that officers failed or refuse to make a return of the said search
    warrant in violation of Sec 11, Rule 126 ROC.

    Judge Ontal issued an order holding in abeyance the disposition of said amount pending the filing of appropriate
    charges in connection with the search warrant.

    Petitioners Silva filed motion to quash Search Warrant 1 on the grounds that:
    1. It was issued on the sole basis of a mimeographed Application of Search Warrant and Deposition
    Witness which were accomplished by mere filling out blanks
    2. Judge failed to personally examine the complainant and the witnesses by searching questions and
    answers
    Judge Eugenio Cruz, replacing Judge Ontal denied the motion for lack of merit. MR of petitioners was likewise
    denied.

    Special civil action for certiorari before the SC.

    ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

    Issue Ratio
    W/N Search Warrant No. 1 was YES
    tainted with illegality
    Sec. 2 Art. III of the Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty and
    security of homes against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    Sec 3 & 4, Rule 126 of ROC provide for the requisites for the issuance of SW.

    Sec 3 – Requisites for issuing search warrant:


    University of the Philippines College of Law
    KS D2021

    1. Probable cause in connection with one specific offense


    2. Personal determination by the judge after examination under oath or
    affirmation of the complainant and witnesses
    3. Particular description of the place to be searched and things to be
    seized.
    Sec 4 – Examination of warrant
    1. Before issuing the warrant, Judge must personally examine in the
    form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath
    the complainant and any witnesses he may produce on facts
    personally known to them
    2. Attach to the record their sworn statements together with any
    affidavits submitted.

    Probable cause for a valid search warrant = such facts and circumstances
    which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
    offense has been committed, and that objects sought in connection with the
    offense are in the place to be searched

    In this case, Judge Ontal failed to comply with the legal requirement to
    examine the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions
    and answers in order to determine the existence of probable cause.
     Application for SW merely contained questions answerable by yes or
    no in the blanks provided therein.
     The deposition contained leading and very broad questions which are
    not probing but merely routinary.

    In issuing a SW, judge must strictly comply with the constitutional and
    statutory requirement [as stated above]. Failure to comply constitutes grave
    abuse of discretion and the issued search warrant is invalid.

    WN judge committed grave YES


    abuse of discretion when he
    rejected motion of Antonieta Antonieta was not named in the SW and the warrant did not indicate the
    seeking return of her money seizure of money. The SW was issued for the seizure of personal property (a)
    subject of the offense and (b) used or intended to be used as means of
    committing offense and NOT for personal property stolen or embezzled or
    other proceeds thereof.

    RULING

    WHEREFORE, petition granted. SW No 1 declared null and void.

    SEPARATE OPINIONS

    NOTES

    You might also like