CRIMINAL LAW TOPIC: Crimes Against the Fundamental Law of the State

Case Name Burgos v. Chief of Staff

GR No. | Date G.R. No. 64261 | December 26, 1984 Ponente Escolin, J.

Topic Search warrants maliciously obtained, and abuse in the service of those legally obtained

Doctrine Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that
the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

The Constitution requires no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses
of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified. General warrants
are invalid.

Laws Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution (formerly Art. IV, Sec. 3, 1973 Constitution) – 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 be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause 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 persons or things
to be seized.

Summary Judge Ernani Cruz Paño issued two (2) search warrants against Jose Burgos. The search was
conducted in the business addresses of “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers,
wherein machinery, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles alleged to
belong to the petitioner were seized.

In response to the seizure, petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction for the return of the seized articles, and for preventing them from
using such as evidence against the petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. and the other accused in the
Criminal Case entitled, "People v. Burgos, Jr. et. al".

Out of all the contentions of the petitioners in invalidating the search warrants, the Supreme
Court agreed that there is no sufficient basis for a probable cause in issuing the said warrant.
It ruled that mere generalizations for issuing the warrant does not suffice. It also held that
there must be no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witness of the facts
justifying the issuance of the search warrant.

The Supreme court also ruled that the warrants issued are classified as general warrants,
making them invalid. The description of the articles sought to be seized should be
characterized differently. Thus, the two (2) search warrants were declared null and void,
granting the writ of mandatory injunction.

Facts of the Case

Date of the Fact: December 7, 1982
Statement of Facts:
• Respondent Judge Ernani, Cruz-Paño issued two (2) search warrants under which the premises are on the
business addresses of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers. Office and printing machines,
equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles, and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution
of said newspapers, as well as other literature alleged to be in possession and control of petitioner Jose
Burgos, Jr., publisher and editor of the “We Forum,” were seized.
 • Petitioners pray for a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued for the return of the
seized articles, and that respondents be enjoined from using the articles thus seized as evidence against
petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr., and other accused in Criminal Case No. Q-022782 of the RTC of Quezon City
entitled “People v. Jose Burgos, Jr. et al.”
• July 7, 1983 – respondents opposed the prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, but manifested
that they “will not use the articles as evidence in the aforementioned case until final resolution of the legality
of the seizure…”

Statements Raised by the Respondents:

• Petitioners come to the Court without previously seeking the quashal of search warrants before respondent
judge – the procedure was suspended by the SC in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional
issues raised, and due to the public interest generated by the search.
• Petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches. Search warrants were issued on December 7, 1982,
while the petition was filed only on June 16, 1983, or after a lapse of period of more than six (6) months.
• Petitioner already used some of the documents in the Criminal Case No. Q-022782. He is now estopped from
challenging the validity of the search warrants.

Arguments Raised by the Petitioners:

• Respondent judge failed to conduct an examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his
witnesses – rendered moot and academic since the petitioners conceded that an examination has been
conducted.
• The two search warrants pinpointed only one place where petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was allegedly keeping
and concealing the articles listed.
• Although the warrants were directed against Jose Burgos, Jr. alone, articles belonging to his co-petitioners
were also seized.
• Real properties were seized under the disputed warrants
• The documents filed for the application of the search warrant could not have provided sufficient basis for
finding a probable cause upon which a warrant may validly issue.

Ratio Decidendi

Issue 1: Were the two (2) search warrants validly issued?

No.

Application in the case at bar:

The Supreme Court held that as the search warrants were invalid since the application for the said warrants and its
supporting affidavits are mere generalizations that do not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Additionally, it
further ruled that the search warrants issued are in the nature of general warrants, which are void for being too general.

It also ruled that the search and seizure resulted to the closure of the business and printing offices of the “Metropolitan
Mail” and the “We Forum” newspapers, which constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners’ freedom to express
themselves in print.

Conclusion:
Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense
are in the place sought to be searched. When the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher
or editor, the application and its supporting affidavits must contain a specification, stating the alleged subversive
material he has published or is intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice. The Constitution requires
no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search
warrant may be justified.

In addition, general warrants are invalid. It is a general warrant if the description of the articles to be seized under the
search warrants in a question cannot be characterized differently.
Ruling

In view of the foregoing, Search Warrants Nos. 20-82[a] and 20-82[b] issued by respondent judge on December 7,
1982 are hereby declared null and void and are accordingly set aside. The prayer for a writ of mandatory injunction
for the return of the seized articles is hereby granted and all articles seized thereunder are hereby ordered released to
petitioners.

No costs.
So Ordered.

Separate Opinions

Abad Santos, J., concurring

I am glad to give my concurrence to the ponencia of Mr. Justice Escolin. At the same time I wish to state my own
reasons for holding that the search warrants which are the subject of the petition are utterly void.

The action against WE FORUM was a naked suppression of press freedom for the search warrants were issued in
gross violation of the Constitution
• Art. IV, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution: (1) No warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by
the judge in a manner set forth in said provision; and (2) the warrant shall particularly describe the things to
be seized.
• Any search warrant is conducted in disregard of the points mentioned will result in wiping “out completely
one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution…”

The two search warrants were issued without probable cause.

• To satisfy the requirement of probable cause, a specific offense must be alleged in the application.
• Abstract averments will not suffice. In the case at bar, nothing specifically subversive has been alleged.

The search warrants are also void for lack of particularity. Why were the documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, etc.
subversive? What did they contain to make them subversive? There is nothing in the applications nor in the warrants
which answers the questions. Therefore, the warrants are general warrants which are obnoxious to the Constitution.

Conformable with existing jurisprudence, everything seized pursuant to the warrants should be returned to the owners
and all of the items are subject to the exclusionary rule of evidence.