Burgos vs. Chief of Staff

Burgos vs. Chief of Staff
G.R. No. L-64261, December 26, 1984, 133 SCRA 800

FACTS:

On December 7, 1982, respondent judge issued two [2] search warrants to "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers.

During the search, the office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper, were seized.



Petitioners pray to nullify the search warrants in question.

Respondent:

1. Respondents contend that petitioners should have filed a motion to quash said warrants in the court that issued them before impugning the validity of the same before this Court.
2. Respondents also assail the petition on the ground of laches (failure or negligence for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.)
3. Respondents also submit the theory that since petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. had used and marked as evidence some of the seized documents, he is now estopped from challenging the validity of the search warrants. 
4. Respondents also invoked Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 885 to justify the continued sealing of the printing machines, "the sequestration of the property of any person, natural or artificial, engaged in subversive activities against the government and its duly constituted authorities ... in accordance with implementing rules and regulations as may be issued by the Secretary of National Defense."

Petitioners:

1. Petitioners alleged that respondent Judge failed to conduct an examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses, as mandated by the above-quoted constitutional provision as wen as Sec. 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. 
2. The two search warrants pinpointed only one place where petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was allegedly keeping and concealing the articles listed therein.
3. Articles belonging to his co-petitioners - Jose Burgos, Sr., Bayani Soriano and the J. Burgos Media Services, Inc. were also seized although the warrants were directed against Jose Burgos, Jr. alone.
4. Real properties were seized.
5. The documents and Joint Affidavit presented to respondent Judge prior to the filing of the search warrants could not have provided sufficient basis for the finding of a probable cause upon which a warrant may validly issue in accordance with Section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution which provides,

SEC. 3. ... and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the two search warrants were valid.

Read: People vs. Gerente

HELD:

No.

Quashal of Warrants - The Court takes cognizance of this petition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional Issue raised, not to mention the public interest generated by the search of the "We Forum" offices which was televised in Channel 7 and widely publicized in all metropolitan dailies.

The existence of this special circumstance justifies this Court to exercise its inherent power to suspend its rules.

With the contention pertaining to laches, the petitioners gave an explanation evidencing that they have exhausted other extra-judicial efforts to remedy the situation, negating the presumption that they have abandoned their right to the possession of the seized property.

PD 885 - It is doubtful however, if sequestration could validly be effected in view of the absence of any implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the Minister of National Defense.

Besides, President Marcos himself denied the request of the military authorities to sequester the property seized from petitioners.

Ruling regarding the enumerated reasons by the petitioners:

1. This objection may properly be considered moot and academic, as petitioners themselves conceded during the hearing on August 9, 1983, that an examination had indeed been conducted by respondent judge of Col. Abadilla and his witnesses.
2. The defect pointed out is obviously a typographical error. Precisely, two search warrants were applied for and issued because the purpose and intent were to search two distinct premises. It would be quite absurd and illogical for respondent judge to have issued two warrants intended for one and the same place.
3. Section 2, Rule 126, of the Rules of Court, does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. It may or may not be owned by him.
4. Petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land and/or building on which the machineries were placed.
5. This being the case, the machineries in question, while in fact bolted to the ground, remain movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant. The broad statements in the application and joint affidavit are mere conclusions of law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Deficient of such particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant and it was a grave error for respondent judge to have done so. In Alvarez v. Court of First Instance, this Court ruled that "the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause." Another factor which makes the search warrants under consideration constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants. The description of the articles sought to be seized under the search warrants in question are too general.

Read: Alvarez vs Court of First Instance

Therefore, the two search warrants issued by respondent Judge on are hereby declared null and void.

The prayer for a writ of mandatory injunction for the return of the seized articles is hereby granted and all articles seized are hereby ordered released to petitioners.

No costs.