8/3/2019 Burgos Sr v Chief of Staff

1/2

BURGOS SR v CHIEF OF STAFF

FACTS

December 7, 1982 Judge Ernani Cruz-Pao CFI Rizal[Quezon City],issued two search warrants underwhich the premises known as No. 19,Road 3, Project6, Quezon City, business address of MetropolitanMailnewspaper, and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building,Quezon Avenue,Quezon City, business address of the "We Forum" newspaper weresearched.- office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motorvehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication anddistribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers,documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in thepossession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the

newspaper.

The questioned search warrants were issued by respondent judge uponapplication of Col. Rolando N.Abadilla, Intelligence Officer of the P.C.Metrocom. The application was accompanied by the JointAffidavit ofAlejandro M. Gutierrez and Pedro U. Tango, members of the MetrocomIntelligence andSecurity Group under Col. Abadilla which conducted asurveillance of the premises prior to the filing of the application for thesearch warrants on December7, 1982.-

Respondents aver that the case should be dismissed on the ground thatpetitioners had come to SC without having previously sought the quashal

of the search warrants before the issuing judge.

Petitioners' Claims

Petitioners fault respondent judge for his alleged failure to conductan examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and hiswitnesses, as mandated by the constitution as well as Sec. 4,Rule126 of the Rules of Court.

However, SC found that as petitioners themselves conceded duringthe hearing on August 9, 1983, that an examination had indeedbeen conducted by respondent judge of Col. Abadillaand his

witnesses, this issue is moot and academic.

Search Warrants No. 20-82[a] and No. 20-82[b]were used to searchtwo distinct places: No. 19, Road3, Project 6, Quezon City and 784Units C & D, RMSBuilding, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City. Objection isinterposed to the execution of Search Warrant No.20-82[b] at thelatter address on the ground that the two search warrantspinpointed only one place where petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. wasallegedly keeping and concealing the articles listed therein, i.e., No.19,Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City.

Although the warrants were directed against JoseBurgos, Jr. alone,articles belonging to his co-petitioners Jose Burgos, Sr., BayaniSoriano and the J.Burgos Media Services, Inc. were seized.

8/3/2019 Burgos Sr v Chief of Staff

2/2

Real properties were seized under the disputedwarrants.> thatdocuments relied on by respondents could nothave providedsufficient basis for the finding of aprobable cause upon which awarrant may validlyissue in accordance with Section 3, Article IV ofthe1973 Constitution

ISSUES

WON the two search warrants are:

1. Defective for stating only one and the same place to be searched

2. Null and void for including properties not owned by the person named inthe warrants

3. Null and void for including real properties

4. Null and void for being violative of the constitution,thus encroaching on

petitioners' fundamental rights

HELD

NO- The defect pointed out is a typographical error. Two search warrantswere applied for and issued because the purpose and intent were tosearch two distinct premises. The addresses of the places sought to besearched were specifically set forth in the application, and since it wasCol. Abadilla himself who headed the team which executed the , theambiguity that might have arisen by reason of the typographical error ismore apparent than real.

In the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premisesto be searched with sufficient particularity, it has been held "that theexecuting officer's prior knowledge as to the place intended in the warrantis relevant. This would seem to be especially true where the executingofficer is the affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had issued and whenhe knows that the judge who issued the warrant intended the buildingdescribed in the affidavit.

NOTE: The purpose of acquiring particularity of description is to preventabuse by the officer enforcing the warrant by leaving to him no discretionas to who or what to search or seize.