SEARCH WARRANT

Before issuing search warrant, a judge must conduct an exhaustive and

probing inquiry of the applicant and his witnesses to determine the existence
of probable cause which must be shown by the best evidence under the
circumstances. (Nala vs. Barroso, Jr., et.al., G.R. NO. 153087, August 7,
2003)
Probable cause as applied to illegal possession of firearms consists of such
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
man to believe that a person is in possession of a firearm and that he does
not have a license or permit to possess the same. Probable cause must be
shown by the best evidence that could be obtained under the circumstances
especially where the issue is the existence of a negative ingredient of the
offense e.g. the absence of a license required by law. The probable cause
must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or
the witnesses he may be produced and not based on mere hearsay. (Nala vs.
Barroso, Jr., et.al., G.R. NO. 153087, August 7, 2003)
In this case, nowhere in the affidavit and testimony of Mario nor in PO3
Freds application for issuance of a search warrant was it mentioned that
Rufo had no license to possess a firearm. While PO3 Fred testified before
the RTC Judge that the firearms found in possession of Rufo are not
licensed, this does not qualify as personal knowledge but only personal
belief because neither he nor Mario verified, much more secured, a
certification from the appropriate government agency that Rufo was not
licensed to possess a firearm. This certification could have been the best
evidence obtainable to prove that Rufo had no license to possess firearms
and ammunitions, but the police officers failed to present the same. So the
search and seizure warrant issued against Rufo is void and the articles seized
by virtue thereof are inadmissible in evidence. (Nala vs. Barroso, Jr., et.al.,
G.R. NO. 153087, August 7, 2003)