NALA V. BARROSO, GR NO. 153087 AUGUST 7, 2003

FACTS:

PO3 Macrino L. Alcoser applied for the issuance of a warrant to search the person and residence of the petitioner Bernard R. Nala in connection with petitioner’s alleged illegal possession of one caliber .22 magnum and one 9 mm. pistol in violation of the law on Illegal Possession of Firearms.

On the same day, after examining Alcoser and his witness Ruel Nalagon, respondent judge of RTC of Malaybalay City issued Search and Seizure warrant against “Romulo Nala alias Lolong Nala who is said to be residing at Purok 4, Poblacion, Kitaaotao, Bukidnon.”

On July 4, 2001, at around 6:30am, Alcoser and other police officers searched petitioner’s house and allegedly seized the following articles: (a) one piece caliber .38 revolver (snub-nose) with Serial Number 1125609 (b) one piece fragmentation grenade (cacao type) (c) one piece .22 long barrel (d) 5 pieces live ammunition for caliber .38 revolver (e) 4 pieces of disposable lighter and unestimated numbers of cellophane used for packing of shabu.

The following day, a criminal case was filed against the petitioner for illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives.

The petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to (1) Quash Search and Seizure Warrant (2) declare inadmissible for any purpose the items allegedly seized under the said warrant (3) direct release of the air rifle seized by the police officers.

The respondent Judge however denied the said Motion to Quash but ordered the return of the air rifle to the petitioner. Respondent stated that there was probable cause which was duly established from the deposition and examination of the witness and the testimony of Alcoser. the fact that the items seized were not exactly the items seized bear a direct relation to the crime of illegal possession of firearms. Also, the respondent Judge found that the petitioner was sufficiently identified in the warrant although his first name was erroneously stated therein as “Romulo” and not as “Bernard”, considering that the warrant was couched in terms that would make it enforceable against the person and residence of petitioner and no other. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was also denied.

Hence, he filed the instant petition alleging that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned orders. The instant petition was also filed directly to this Court in disregard of the rule on hierarchy of courts. We opt to take cognizance of this petition in order to address the urgency and seriousness of the constitutional issues raised.

ISSUES:

1.     Whether or not the petitioner was sufficiently described in the search and seizure warrant?

2.  Whether or not there was probable cause for the issuance of a search and seizure warrant against the petitioner?

3.    Whether or not the firearms and explosive allegedly found in petitioner’s residence are admissible as evidence against him even though said firearms were not listed in the search and seizure warrant?

HELD:

1.     Yes, the petitioner was sufficiently described in the search and seizure warrant.

2.    No, the affidavit and testimony of the witness and PO3 Alcoser failed to establish the existence of probable cause.

3.     No because the search and seizure warrant was not valid hence the items seized are inadmissible.

RATIO:

1.    On the first issue, the failure to correctly state in the search and seizure warrant the first name of petitioner, which is “Bernard” and not “Romulo” or “Rumolo”, does not invalidate the warrant because the additional description “alias Lolong Nala who is said to be residing at Purok 4, Poblacion, Kitaotao, Bukidnon” sufficiently enabled the police officers to locate and identify the petitioner.  What is prohibited is a warrant against an unnamed party, and not one which, as in the instant case, contains a descriptio personae that will enable the officer to identify the accused without difficulty

2.   Nowhere, however, in the affidavit and testimony of witness Ruel Nalagon nor in PO3 Macrino L. Alcoser’s application for the issuance of a search warrant was it mentioned that petitioner had no license to possess a firearm.  While Alcoser testified before the respondent judge that the firearms in the possession of petitioner are not licensed, this does not qualify as “personal knowledge” but only “personal belief” because neither he nor Nalagon verified, much more secured, a certification from the appropriate government agency that petitioner was not licensed to possess a firearm.  This could have been the best evidence obtainable to prove that petitioner had no license to possess firearms and ammunitions, but the police officers failed to present the same.

the fact remains that both the applicant, PO3 Macrino L. Alcoser, and his witness Ruel Nalagon did not have personal knowledge of petitioner’s lack of license to possess firearms, ammunitions and explosive; and did not adduce the evidence required to prove the existence of probable cause that petitioner had no license to possess a firearm.  Hence, the search and seizure warrant issued on the basis of the evidence presented is void.

3.     Conformably, the articles allegedly seized in the house of petitioner cannot be used as evidence against him because access therein was gained by the police officer using a void search and seizure warrant.  It is as if they entered petitioner’s house without a warrant, making their entry therein illegal, and the items seized, inadmissible. Moreover, it does not follow that because an offense is malum prohibitum, the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita, but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. A warrant is still necessary, because possession of any firearm becomes unlawful only if the required permit or license therefor is not first obtained.

The items seized in petitioner’s house, being “fruits of the poisonous tree”, are “inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.” The exclusion of these unlawfully seized evidence is the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. Hence, the complaints filed against petitioner for illegal possession of firearms and explosive based on illegally obtained evidence have no more leg to stand on