Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Silva v Honorable Presiding Judge of Negros Oriental

October 21, 1991 | Fernan, CJ. | Petition for Certiorari | Procedure for issuance of search warrant
PETITIONER: Nicomedes Silva
RESPONDENT: The Hon. RTC Judge, Negros Oriental
SUMMARY: Warrant No. 1 was issued to search the room of the petitioner. The presiding judge ordered that Marijuana
dried leaves, cigarettes, joint be seized, because are good and sufficient reasons to believe that marijuana dried leaves,
cigarettes, joint has in possession and/or control at Tama's Room. The police officers also took the money of one Antonieta
Silva, who is not even named respondent in the application for search warrant. The Court held that such issuance is illegal
judge must have determined whether there is probable cause by examining the complainant and witnesses through searching
questions and answers, which he failed to due. Seizure of Antonietas money also illegal because it is not among those indicated to
searched and seized.
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
1. Judge Ontal of RTC Dumaguete City issued Seacrh Warrant
no. 1, granting the application for search warrant by the chief
of the PC Narcom Detachment in the same city.
2. Pursuant to the search warrant then issued, the presiding
judge ordered the search of Marlon Silvas room in the
residence of Nicomedes Silva for an alleged violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended.
3. The warrant said that there is probable cause to believe that
possession and control of Marijuana dried leaves, cigarettes,
joint has been committed or is about to be committed and
that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that
marijuana dried leaves, cigarettes, joint has in possession
and/or control at Tama's Room, to be done at any time of the
day.
4. They also seized money belonging to one ANtonieta Silva
amounting to P1,231.40.
5. Petitioners filed a motion to quash Search Warrant for a) it
was issued on the sole basis of a mimeographed "Application
for Search Warrant" and "Deposition of Witness", which were
accomplished by merely filling in the blanks and b) the judge
failed to personally examine the complainant and witnesses by
searching questions and answers. Respondent judge denied
their motion to quash.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON officers implementing the search warrant clearly
abused their authority when they seized the money of
Antonieta Silva YES
2. WON the issuance complied with the requsites for the
issuance of a search warrant - NO

RULING: Search Warrant No. 1 nullified.


RATIO:
1. Section 2, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987
Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty and
security of homes against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Said provision is against unlawful search and seizure,
protecting the privacy and security of the person and property.
It also prevents unlawful invasion of sanctity of the home by
law officers.
2. Sections 3 and 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provide for
the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant. Both the
constitutional mandate and the staturory provision provide that
the judge must have determined whether there is probable
cause by personally examining the applicant and his
witnesses the complainant and witnesses through
searching questions and answers. The judge failed to do this,
and in fact, asked just four questions which are merely
routinary. The deposition was already mimeogragphed and
all that the witnesses had to do was fill in their answers on
the blanks provided.
3. Antonieta was not even name respondent, and the items
specifically indicated to be searched do not include money.
4. Search warrant was issued for seizure of personal effects of
subject of the offense and used or intended to be used as
means of committing an offense and NOT for personal
property stolen or embezzled or other proceeds of fruits of the
offense.