Quintero vs.
NBI Statements of applicant and complainant did not provide sufficient basis for the finding
162 SCRA 467
June 23, 1988
Padilla, J.:
Facts:
1. May 19, 1972 Petitioner Eduardo Quintero was a delegate of the 1 st District of Leyte
in the 1971 ConCon
2. He disclosed in his speech that certain persons had distributed money to some
delegates to influence them in the discharge of their functions.
3. Quintero delivered to the Concon the payola he himself received, for Concons action.
However, he did not reveal the names of those who gave him money.
4. Eventually, he was pressured to name them so he released a sworn statement
addressed to the Concon, mentioning the names of the persons who gave him the
payola.
5. In his statement, it appeared that varying amounts of money were being handed to him
by different people from different offices, some from other delegates, from wives of
representatives.
6. The then First Lady Imelda Marcos was among those implicated in Quinteros expose.
7. Due to this, Pres. Ferdinand Marcos denounced Quintero and made a statement sayng
that he will uncover the people behind this act making Quintero as a tool.
8. That same day/evening, NBI agents raided the house of Quintero on the basis of a
search warrant issued by the CFI Manila Judge Asuncion. NBI claimed to have found
bundles of money in Quinteros residence.
9. NBI filed a criminal complaint for direct bribery against Quintero with the court issuing a
TRO enjoining the use in any proceeding of the objects seized by NBI from his
residence.
10. The search warrant delivered to the occupant of the searched premises was issued in
connection with the offense of grave threats and not direct bribery which was the
criminal complaint filed against Quintero.
11. The 1935 Constitution was enforced at that time of the issuance of the search warrant
which was being questioned.
Issue: Whether or not the questioned search warrant issued by the judge is null and void for being
violative of the Constitution and the Rules of Court
Ruling: YES. The Court finds, and so holds, that the questioned search warrant issued by the
judge is null and void for being violative of the Constitution and the Rules of Court
No relation at all can be established between the crime supposedly committed and the
evidence ordered to be seized. There was thus no ground whatsoever for the respondent judge to
claim that facts and circumstances had been established, sufficient for him to believe that the
crime being charged had been committed.
of probable cause.
The respondent judge should have known that an application for search warrant if
based on hearsay cannot justify the issuance of a search warrant, before he issued the
questioned search warrant.
The search itself that was conducted by the NBI agents who raided the house of
petitioner pursuant to the questioned search warrant was highly irregular as no members of the
household were in a position to watch them, thus they conducted the search on their own. This
procedure is held to be violative of both the spirit and the letter of the law, which provides that no
search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made, except in the presence of at least
one competent witness, resident of the neighborhood.
Requirements of Section 10, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court were not complied with.
The officer seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the
person on whom or in whose possession it was found, or in the absence of any person, must in
the presence of one witness, leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property.
In the case at bar, the one who attested to the receipt from the raiding party was himself a
member of the raiding party.
The circumstances prevailing before the issuance of the questioned warrant , and the
actual manner in which the search was conducted, strongly suggest that the entire procedure ws
an orchestrated movement designed to destroy Quinteros public image with incriminating
evidence and that the evidence allegedly seized from his residence was planted by the very
raiding party that was commanded to seize such.
Fallo:
WHEREFORE, Search Warrant No. 7 issued on 31 May 1972 by respondent Judge is declared
NULL and VOID and of no force and effect. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this
Court on 6 June 1972 is hereby made PERMANENT. The amount of P379,200.00 allegedly seized
from the house of petitioner Quintero, now in the possession of the Central Bank, and already
demonetized, is left with Central Bank, to be disposed of, as such, in accordance with the law and
the regulations.
SO ORDERED.