Prudente v. Judge Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69 (1989)

Prudente v. Judge Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69 (1989

 FACTS:

• P/Major Alladin Dimag-maliw filed an application for issuance of search warrant for Violation of PD 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.)
• He alleged that Nemesio Prudente is keeping and concealing at the premises of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, armalites, handguns, pistols, explosives and grenades and other assorted weapons with ammunitions
• P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles, in support of Dimag-maliw executed a “Deposition of Witness” stating that they “gathered informations from verified sources” that the holders of the said firearms and explosives are not licensed to possess them
• Respondent Judge then issued the search warrant which was implemented against Petitioner
• Prudente moved to quash claiming that (1) the complainant’s lone witness, Lt. Florenio C. Angeles, had no personal knowledge of the facts which formed the basis for the issuance of the search warrant; (2) the examination of the said witness was not in the form of searching questions and answers; (3) the search warrant was a general warrant, for the reason that it did not particularly describe the place to be searched and that it failed to charge one specific offense; and (4) the search warrant was issued in violation of Circular No. 19 of the Supreme Court in that the complainant failed to allege under oath that the issuance of the search warrant on a Saturday was urgent

ISSUE:
Whether the issuance of the search warrant against Prudente is proper.
 
RULING:
No.
While it is true that in his application for search warrant, applicant P/Major Dimagmaliw stated that he verified the information he had earlier received that petitioner had in his possession and custody the firearms and explosives described in the application, and that he found it to be a fact, yet there is nothing in the record to show or indicate how and when said applicant verified the earlier information acquired by him as to justify his conclusion that he found such information to be a fact.
In Alvarez, it was held that, “The true test of sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and the affiant be held liable for damage caused. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant for search warrant, and/or his witnesses, not of the facts merely reported by a person whom one considers to be reliable.” Tested by the above standard, the allegations of the witness, P/Lt. Angeles, in his deposition, do not come up to the level of facts of his personal knowledge so much so that he cannot be held liable for perjury for such allegations in causing the issuance of the questioned search warrant.
Additionally, Respondent Judge did not examine him “in the form of searching questions and answers.” On the contrary, the questions asked were leading as they called for a simple “yes” or “no” answer. As held in Quintero vs. NBI, “the questions propounded by respondent Executive Judge to the applicant’s witness are not sufficiently searching to establish probable cause. Asking of leading questions to the deponent in an application for search warrant, and conducting of examination in a general manner, would not satisfy the requirements for issuance of a valid search warrant.
The designation of the places to be searched sufficiently complied with the constitutional injunction that a search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched since there was a particular description of the location of PUP and referred to ground floor and second floor rooms.
Failing to allege under oath that the issuance of the search warrant on a Saturday was urgent provides for a guideline, departure from which would not necessarily affect the validity of an otherwise valid search warrant.