SILVA V. PRESIDING JUDGE G.R. No. 81756 October 21, 1991
FACTS:
l RTC judge Nickarter Ontal issued a search warrant filed by M/Sgt. Ranulfo Villamor, chief of the PC NARCOM Detachment in Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, to be served against Petitioner Nicomedes Silva.
l The application was accompanied by “deposition of witness” executed by Arthur Alcoran and Pat. Leon Quindo.
l The search warrant stated that “You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at any time of the day (night) of the room of Tama Silva residence of his father Comedes Silva to open aparadors, lockers, cabinets, cartoons, containers, forthwith seize and take possession of the following property Marijuana dried leaves, cigarettes, joint and bring the said property to the undersigned to be dealt with as the law directs.”
l During the raid, the officers seized money belonging to Antonieta Silva in the amount of P1,231.40.
l Petitioners alleged that the enforcement of the search warrant was illegal because it was issued on the sole basis of mimeographed and the judge failed to personally examine the complainant and witness by searching questions and answers.
l Antoinette Silva also filed a motion the return of the said amount because her name is not included in the search warrant. Thus, her belongings shouldn’t be subject of the warrant.
l Acting on the said motion to return the money, Judge Ontal issued an order stating that the court “holds in abeyance the disposition of the said amount pending the filing of appropriate charges in connection with the search warrant.
l RTC’s new judge, replacing judge Ontal, ruled against petitioners.
l MR was likewise denied by Judge Cruz (new judge).
l Hence, this special civil action for certiorari.
ISSUE:
WON the search warrant is validly issued by then Judge Ontal
HELD:
NO. In the case at bar, we have carefully examined the questioned search warrant as well as the "Application for Search Warrant" and "Deposition of Witness", and found that Judge Ontal failed to comply with the legal requirement that he must examine the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers in order to determine the existence of probable cause. The joint "Deposition of Witness" executed by Pfc. Alcoran and Pat. Quindo, which was submitted together with the "Application for Search Warrant" contained, for the most part, suggestive questions answerable by merely placing "yes" or "no" in the blanks provided thereon.
The above deposition did not only contain leading questions but it was also very broad. The questions propounded to the witnesses were in fact, not probing but were merely routinary. The deposition was already mimeographed and all that the witnesses had to do was fill in their answers on the blanks provided.
Thus, in issuing a search warrant, the judge must strictly comply with the constitutional and statutory requirement that he must determine the existence of probable cause by personally examining the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers. His failure to comply with this requirement constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
The officers implementing the search warrant clearly abused their authority when they seized the money of Antonieta Silva. This is highly irregular considering that Antonieta Silva was not even named as one of the respondents, that the warrant did not indicate the seizure of money but only of marijuana leaves, cigarettes and joints, and that the search warrant was issued for the seizure of personal property (a) subject of the offense and (b) 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. Thus, the then presiding Judge Ontal likewise abused his discretion when he rejected the motion of petitioner Antonieta Silva seeking the return of her seized money.
Petition granted.