Castro v Pabalan GR L-28642

Requisites : a. existence of probable cause

Facts:

 Maria Castro and Co Ling whose residence was not indicated, but subsequently mentioned that
they are in Barrio Padasil, Bangar, La Union, have in possession narcotics and other contraband
as what Ernesto I Lumang admitted in the application for search warrant.
 This application was accompanied by the joint affidavit of Sgt. Francisco C. Molina and Cpl.
Lorenzo G Apilado of the Philippine Constabulary, they said that they conducted rigid
surveillance.
 July 10, 1968, Judge Pabalan issued a search warrant for illegal traffic of narcotics and
contraband inside the warehouse of Castro and Co Ling.
 Sgt. Lumang’s testimonies are recorded while the testimony of the 2 witnesses namely Sgt.
Molina and Cpl. Apilado was not written or recorded at all.
 No specific offense had been alleged.

Issue:

Whether or not there was probable cause upon the issuance of the search warrant.

Ruling:

No, there was no probable cause upon the issuance of the search warrant.

Probable cause has been defined as referring to such facts and circumstances antecedent to the
issuance of the warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on them and
act in pursuance thereof. Corollary to the requirement of probable cause is the rule that the warrant
must refer to only one specific offense provided in Rule 126, Section 3, of the Rules of Court. In the case
at bar, the warrant issued is for Illegal traffic of narcotics and contraband. The latter is a general term
that refers to any commodities that are exported or imported against the law. The illegal traffic of
narcotics and other contraband must therefore necessarily give rise to more than one offense. Since the
deposition of the witnesses are not recorded or written, there was violation of the constitutional
standard as to show proof the existence of probable cause.

Therefore, there was no probable cause upon the issuance of the search warrant

Held:

WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted and the order of September 21, 1967 denying the motion
of petitioners to annul the search warrant as well as the resolutions of October 26, 1967 and January 29,
1968 denying the motions for reconsiderations are reversed, the decision of this Court being that the
search warrant in question is tainted by illegality for being violative both of the Constitution and the
Rules of Court. It is likewise the decision of this Court that notwithstanding the illegality of such search
warrant, the challenged order of respondent Judge can be sustained only insofar as it would limit the
return of the articles seized to the liquor, the pack of playing cards, the bottle of distilled water and five
bottles of Streptomycin taken under such search warrant. No costs.