0% found this document useful (0 votes)
13 views2 pages

Corro vs. Lising

Consti 2

Uploaded by

doydoyimba2019
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
13 views2 pages

Corro vs. Lising

Consti 2

Uploaded by

doydoyimba2019
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Corro vs. Lising (G.R. No.

L-69899, July 15, 1985)


PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT.

FACTS:

On September 29, 1983, Respondent RTC Judge Esteban Lising, upon application filed by Lt. Col. Berlin
Castillo of the Philippine Constabulary Criminal Investigation Service, issued a search warrant
authorizing the search and seizure of articles allegedly used by petitioner in committing the crime of
inciting to sedition.
1. Printed copies of Philippine Times;
2. Manuscripts/drafts of articles for publication in the Philippine Times;
3. Newspaper dummies of the Philippine Times;
4. Subversive documents, articles, printed matters, handbills, leaflets, banners;
5. Typewriters, duplicating machines, mimeographing and tape recording machines, video machines
and tapes

Petitioner filed an urgent motion to recall warrant and to return documents/personal properties alleging
among others that the properties seized are typewriters, duplicating machines, mimeographing and tape
recording machines, video machines and tapes which are not in any way, inanimate or mute things as
they are, connected with the offense of inciting to sedition.

November 6, 1984, or one (1) year, one (1) month and six (6) days when petitioner filed his motion for the recall
of the warrant and the return of the documents/personal properties. Having failed to act seasonably,
respondents claim that petitioner is guilty of laches.

Respondent Judge Lising denied the motion. Hence, this petition praying that the search warrant
issued by respondent Judge Esteban M. Lising be declared null and void ab initio that the padlocked
office premises of the Philippine Times be reopened.

Respondents would have this Court dismiss the petition stating that probable cause exists justifying the
issuance of a search warrant, the articles seized were adequately described in the search warrant, a
search was conducted in an orderly manner and the padlocking of the searched premises was with the
consent of petitioner’s wife.

Hence, this petition for certiorari and mandamus, with application for preliminary injunction and restraining
order to enjoin respondent Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region, Branch 98 from proceeding with the
trial of Criminal Case No. S3-Q-29243, praying (a) that Search Warrant No. Q-00002 issued by respondent Judge
Esteban M. Lising be declared null and void ab initio and that a mandatory injunction be issued directing
respondents City Fiscal's Office of Quezon City and Lt. Col. Berlin Castillo and 1st Lt. Godofredo Ignacio jointly and
severally to return immediately the documents/properties illegally seized from herein petitioner and that final
injunction be issued enjoining respondents City Fiscal's Office of Quezon City, Lt. Col. Castillo and 1st Lt. Ignacio
from utilizing said documents/properties as evidence in Criminal Case No. 29243; and (b) that respondent PC-CIS
officers Lt. Col. Berlin A. Castillo and lst Lt. Godofredo Ignacio be directed to reopen the padlocked office
premises of the Philippine Times at 610 Mezzanine Floor, Gochengco Building, T.M., Kalaw, Ermita, Manila.

ISSUE: Whether there was a sufficient probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant

HELD: WHEREFORE, Search Warrant No. Q-00002 issued by the respondent judge on September 29, 1983 is declared null
and void and, accordingly, SET ASIDE.

The prayer for a writ of mandatory injunction for the return of the seized articles is GRANTED and all properties seized
thereunder are hereby ordered RELEASED to petitioner. Further, respondents Lt. Col. Berlin A. Castillo and lst Lt. Godofredo M.
Ignacio are ordered to RE-OPEN the padlocked office premises of the Philippine Times at 610 Mezzanine Floor, Gochengco
Bldg., T.M. Kalaw, Ermita, Manila.
Section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution provides:

SEC. 3. …no search warrant or warrant of arrest 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.

and, Section 3, Rule 126 of the New Rules of Court, states that:
SEC. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant shall not issue but upon
probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined by the judge or justice of
the peace 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.

Probable cause may be defined as “such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances, as will
warrant a cautious man in the belief that his actions, and the means taken in prosecuting it, are
legally just and proper (Burton vs. St. Paul, M & M. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 189, cited in U.S. vs. Addison,
28 Phil. 566).”

An application for search warrant must state with particularly the alleged subversive materials
published or intended to be published by the publisher and editor of the Philippine Times,
Rommel Corro. The Court cited the Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines case, where it held that the closure of a newspaper office (similar to the padlocking of the
Philippine Times office in this case) constitutes a previous restraint on the freedom of the press,
which is contrary to democratic principles.

A search warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be
seized. “The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those,
and only those, particularly described in the search warrant- to leave the officers of the law with no
discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and
seizures may not be committed, — that abuses may not be committed.

The affidavit of Col. Castillo states that in several issues of the Philippine Times:

… we found that the said publication in fact foments distrust and hatred against the government of the
Philippines and its duly constituted authorities, defined and penalized by Article 142 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1835; (p. 22, Rollo)

and, the affidavit of Lt. Ignacio reads, among others—

… the said periodical published by Rommel Corro, contains articles tending to incite distrust and hatred
for the Government of the Philippines or any of its duly constituted authorities. (p. 23, Rollo)

The above statements are mere conclusions of law and will not satisfy the requirements of
probable cause. They cannot serve as basis for the issuance of search warrant, absent of the
existence of probable cause.

In Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, this Court held that search warrants authorizing the seizure of books of
accounts and records "showing all the business transactions" of certain persons, regardless of whether the
transactions were legal or illegal, contravene the explicit comment of the Bill of Rights that the things to be
seized should be particularly described and defeat its major objective of eliminating general warrants. In the case
at bar, the search warrant issued by respondent judge allowed seizure of printed copies of the Philippine Times,
manuscripts/drafts of articles for publication, newspaper dummies, subversive documents, articles, etc., and
even typewriters, duplicating machines, mimeographing and tape recording machines. Thus, the language used
is so all embracing as to include all conceivable records and equipment of petitioner regardless of whether
they are legal or illegal. The search warrant under consideration was in the nature of a general warrant which
is constitutionally objectionable.

NOTE:

Laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by
exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. The 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 (Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, L-21450, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 35).

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy