G.R. No. 235348 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. STANLEY MADERAZO Y ROMERO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, the Omnibus Motion to Quash Search Warrant(s) and to Suppress Evidence filed by all the accused, through counsel, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Maderazo moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied in its September 21, 2015 Order. [4] Thus, before the appellate court, Maderazo filed a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court when it denied the motion to quash search warrants. [5] On April 26, 2017, the CA granted the petition for certiorari , and nullified and set aside Search Warrant Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015. [6] It, likewise, held that the items allegedly seized in the house being rented by Maderazo by virtue of the said search warrants are inadmissible in evidence against him since the access therein by the police officers used void search warrants. Aggrieved, petitioner raised the lone issue of whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Judge Leynes committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Orders dated August 14, 2015 and September 21, 2015 in Criminal Case Nos. CR-15-12-201 to 203, denying respondent's motion to quash the subject search warrants . Maderazo asserted that there was no probable cause for the issuance of Search Warrant Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015. He added that Judge Leynes did not personally examine P/Supt. Tolentino and his witnesses through searching questions and answers. He alleged that there was no TSN of the supposed personal examination of the judge attached to the records of the case. He asserted that the sworn statements of Roco, Rivera, and Cueto were not based on their personal knowledge but on the alleged admission of Maderazo. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), meanwhile, countered that while there may be no actual TSNs of the proceedings, the sworn statements of witnesses Roco, Rivera and Cueto are actual written records of the preliminary examination conducted by Judge Leynes. It insisted that the admission of Maderazo constituted probable cause which was determined by Judge Leynes after personally examining the witnesses. The petition has no merit. The rules pertaining to the issuance of search warrants are enshrined in Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution: Section 2.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses. papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce , and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. [7] The purpose of the constitutional provision against unlawful searches and seizures is to prevent violations of private security in perso