MALACAT V.

CA (DAVIDE, 12 December 1997)

FACTS: 1. May 15, 1990, NBI agents Max Salvador and Eduardo Arugay applied for the issuance of search warrants by the respondent Judge against petitioner Kho, in his residences in BF homes and Moonwalk, Paranaque. 2. The search warrants were applied after teams of NBI agents had conducted personal surveillances and investigation in the 2 houses on the basis of confidential information they received that said places were being used as storage centers for unlicensed firearms and chop-chop vehicles. 3. On the same day, respondent Judge conducted the necessary examination of the applicants and their witnesses, after which he issued search warrants. 4. May 16, 1990, NBI searched the premises and recovered unlicensed highpowered firearms, ammunitions, radio transceivers and unregistered motor vehicles. 5. May 28, 1990, petitioners file a Motion to Quash contending that said warrants were issued without probable cause and were in the nature of general warrants. 6. July 26, 1990, respondent Judge denied said motion. ISSUE/HELD: WON there was probable cause in the issuance of the search warrants? YES RATIO: It is within the discretion of the examining judge to determine what questions to ask the witnesses so long as the questions asked are germane to the pivot of inquiry the existence or absence of probable cause. The respondent judge examined the applicants and witnesses under oath, and asked them questions on the facts and circumstances personally known to them enough to create a probable cause. On the issue of general warrants, the law does not require that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities. Further, the description is required to be specific only so far as the circumstance will ordinarily allow.

Ernesto Herrera III