REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
QUEZON CITY
Branch 78

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Search Warrant No. 08

Petitioner,
FOR:
-VERSUS-
Violation of R.P.C. Art. 309
ANTONIO ARIEL T. BAUTISTA,
Respondent.
x------------------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT

COMES NOW, the ACCUSED, through undersigned Counsel, unto this

Honorable Court, respectfully moves for the QUASHAL of
Search Warrant No. 08 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 78, on 26 August 2019 based on the following considerations:

1. Search Warrant No 08 was applied for and issued by the

Honorable Presiding Judge FERNANDO T. SAGUN JR. of
Branch 78, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, after finding
probable cause that accused was in possession of subject items of
the search warrant subsequent to the Violation of the
Revised Penal Code, Article 309 (Theft);

ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH

WARRANT AND SUBSEQUENT SEARCH WARRANT

2. The search warrant is seriously defective for the reason that the
honorable presiding judge issued the said search warrant without
having examined personally through searching questions and
answers the witness, S/O KIM T. EXCONDE, Security
Supervisor in-charge of Malcolm Hall, who referred the case to the
University of the Philippines Diliman Police on August 20, 2019.;

3. No Affidavit of Witness S/O EXCONDE was submitted by the

applicant, P/LT. VINCENT T. MORALES in his Application
for Search Warrant before this Court. Such affidavit is necessary as
S/O EXCONDE allegedly first conducted the initial investigation
on the side of the Security Agency prior to referral to the police;
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
Search Warrant No. 08
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES -vs- ANTONIO ARIEL T. BAUTISTA
P a g e 2

4. P/LT. MORALES failed to submit an Affidavit / Deposition in

his Application for Search Warrant. This was necessary to support
the application as he allegedly investigated the case and such
substantial details on the surveillance operations conducted, as well
as the initial interviews with the complaining witnesses;

5. Failure of the prosecution to submit the affidavits of

S/O EXCONDE and P/LT. MORALES casts doubt on
whether the honorable presiding judge was able to personally
examine the witnesses through searching questions – the honorable
judge would not have had any information to go with in his
formulation of searching questions which require an answer
beyond a simple “yes” or “no”. Under Section 5, Rule 126 of the
Revised Rules of Court,

“SEC 5. Examination of complainant; record. – The judge must,

before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form
of searching questions and answers, in writing and
under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce on facts personally known to them and attach
to the record their sworn statements, together with the
affidavits submitted” (emphasis ours).

Such defect at the onslaught of the Application for Search Warrant

should have served as a warning to the honorable presiding judge
that there was something lacking in the complaint;

6. The wordings of the search warrant lacks conviction as to the

personal determination that the honorable judge has made in the
conduct of his examination. Under Section 4, Rule 126 of the
Revised Rules of Court,

“SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. – A search warrant

shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection
with one specific offense to be determined personally by
the judge 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
things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines” (emphasis ours).
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
Search Warrant No. 08
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES -vs- ANTONIO ARIEL T. BAUTISTA
P a g e 3

The omission of the word personally recuses the honorable judge

from perjuring himself as the application for search warrant lacked
the affidavits of S/O EXCONDE and P/LT. MORALES,
which were both crucial to the formulation of the searching
questions the honorable judge allegedly pursued at the trial set for
the issuance of the search warrant. Such ambiguity in the wordings
of the search warrant must be strictly construed against the state
authorities who would be enforcing the search warrant and must
be resolved in favor of the accused;

7. The Search Warrant was issued by the honorable presiding judge

on 26 August 2019, a legal holiday. Pursuant to Administrative
Circular No. 13, item 2,

“2. After the application has been raffled and distributed to

a Branch, the judge who is assigned to conduct the
examination of the complainant and witnesses should
immediately act on the same, considering that time
element and possible leakage of information are primary
considerations in the issuance of search warrants and
seizures” (emphasis ours).

The Application for Search Warrant was filed on 23 August 2019

and docketed under this honorable court on the same date. Given
the Administrative Circular, the Search Warrant should have been
acted upon immediately given that time element was a primary
consideration. Assuming arguendo that such would not have been
possible, the applicant, using the same Administrative Circular,
should have certified the urgency of the issuance of the Search
Warrant on a legal holiday, as provided for under item 3,

“3. Raffling shall be strictly enforced, except only in cases

where an application for search warrant may be filed directly
with any judge in whose jurisdiction the place to be searched
is located, after office hours, or during Saturdays, Sundays,
and legal holidays, in which case the applicant is required
to certify under oath the urgency of the issuance thereof
after office hours, or during Saturdays, Sundays and
legal holidays” (emphasis ours).
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
Search Warrant No. 08
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES -vs- ANTONIO ARIEL T. BAUTISTA
P a g e 4

ON THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN THE APPLICATION FOR A

SEARCH WARRANT

8. S/G JOSE H. DEL ROSARIO failed to substantiate his claim

that accused posted on his social media accounts the subject items
of the search warrant. He failed to establish that the following were
up for sale by the accused:

a) White and Blue Anello Leather Backpack;

b) Brown and Pink Coach Wallet;
c) Huawei P30 Cellular Phone;
d) Mac Book Pro Laptop Computer;
e) Lenovo Ideapad 320 Laptop Computer;
f) Assorted notebooks and law review materials

9. The Closed Circuit Television Camera footage of the

prosecution presented a man in a light colored hoodie, contrary to
the description of witnesses MS. ARIANE ALYSSA S. LOPEZ
and S/G DEL ROSARIO who identified the suspect as having
worn a denim jacket;

10. The prosecution failed to particularly describe the place to be

searched in its Application for Search Warrant. Mere presentation
of a Google Maps screenshot of the purported address of the place
to be searched should not be sufficient grounds for the issuance of
a search warrant. A plain search on the same Google Maps would
present that there is no such address as 282 N. Perez Street,
Barangay Pansol, Quezon City. Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 126
of the Revised Rules of Court,

“SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. – A search warrant

shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection
with one specific offense to be determined personally by the
judge 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
things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines” (emphasis ours).

Had P/LT. MORALES personally conducted his surveillance

operations as he alleged in his application, he would have noted the
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
Search Warrant No. 08
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES -vs- ANTONIO ARIEL T. BAUTISTA
P a g e 5

discrepancy in the address submitted as to where he allegedly

surveilled the accused. He could have also provided photographic
evidence as to the particular place to be searched;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Search Warrant No. 08

be QUASHED and all objects seized under its purported authority be declared
INADMISSIBLE under the exclusionary rule in Article III, Section 3(2), in
relation to Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.

September 2, 2019, Quezon City

B.J.M.O. LAW
Counsel for Respondent
(ANDRES ARIEL T. BAUTISTA)

Unit No. 313, Xanland Place Condominium

#323 Katipunan Avenue
Loyola Heights, Quezon City

CYRIL ISAAC J. OPINION

For the Firm
Attorney’s Roll No. 77613

CP No.: (0905) 156 2528

E-Mail: cj.opinion@bjmolaw.com

PTR No. CAL - 3869013

Issued at Caloocan City
Issued on 15 January 2019

MCLE Compliance
No. IV – 0164050

IBP Life Roll

No. 1 4 1 9 5
dated 12 December 2012
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
Search Warrant No. 08
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES -vs- ANTONIO ARIEL T. BAUTISTA
P a g e 6

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Quezon City

THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Quezon City

Please set the foregoing MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH

WARRANT for hearing before this Honorable Court on September 3, 2019
at 8:30 in the morning.

CYRIL ISAAC J. OPINION

Counsel for Respondent

COPY FURNISHED BY
PERSONAL DELIVERY:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Quezon City