Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-64261 December 26, 1984
JOSE BURGOS, SR., JOSE BURGOS, JR., B!N" SOR"NO #$% J.
BURGOS MED" SER&"CES, "NC.,petitioners,
vs.
T'E C'"E( O( ST((, RMED (ORCES O( T'E P'"L"PP"NES, T'E
C'"E(, P'"L"PP"NE CONSTBULR!, T'E C'"E( LEGL O(("CER,
PRES"DENT"L SECUR"T! COMMND, T'E JUDGE D&OCTE
GENERL, ET L., respondents.
Lorenzo M. Taada, Wigberto E. Taada, Martiniano Vivo, Augusto Sanchez, Joker
P. Arroo, Je!o"ar #ina and $ene Saguisag %or &etitioners.
The So'icitor (enera' %or res&ondents.

ESCOL"N, J.:
Assailed in this petition for certiorari prohibition and mandamus with preliminary
mandatory and prohibitory inunction is the validity of two !"# search warrants
issued on $ecember %, &'(" by respondent )ud*e Ernani Cru+,Pano, E-ecutive
)ud*e of the then Court of .irst /nstance of Ri+al !0ue+on City#, under which the
premises 1nown as No. &', Road 2, Proect 3, 0ue+on City, and %(4 5nits C 6 $,
RM7 Buildin*, 0ue+on Avenue, 0ue+on City, business addresses of the
8Metropolitan Mail8 and 89e .orum8 newspapers, respectively, were searched, and
office and printin* machines, e:uipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other
articles used in the printin*, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as
well as numerous papers, documents, boo1s and other written literature alle*ed to be
in the possession and control of petitioner )ose Bur*os, )r. publisher,editor of the
89e .orum8 newspaper, were sei+ed.
Petitioners further pray that a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory
inunction be issued for the return of the sei+ed articles, and that respondents,
8particularly the Chief ;e*al <fficer, Presidential 7ecurity Command, the )ud*e
Advocate =eneral, A.P, the City .iscal of 0ue+on City, their representatives,
assistants, subalterns, subordinates, substitute or successors8 be enoined from usin*
the articles thus sei+ed as evidence a*ainst petitioner )ose Bur*os, )r. and the other
accused in Criminal Case No. 0, >""%(" of the Re*ional ?rial Court of 0ue+on City,
entitled Peo&'e v. Jose #urgos, Jr. et a'. 1
/n our Resolution dated )une "&, &'(2, respondents were re:uired to answer the
petition. ?he plea for preliminary mandatory and prohibitory inunction was set for
hearin* on )une "(, &'(2, later reset to )uly %, &'(2, on motion of the 7olicitor
=eneral in behalf of respondents.
At the hearin* on )uly %, &'(2, the 7olicitor =eneral, while opposin* petitioners@
prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory inunction, manifested that respondents
8will not use the aforementioned articles as evidence in the aforementioned case until
final resolution of the le*ality of the sei+ure of the aforementioned articles. ...8
2
9ith
this manifestation, the prayer for preliminary prohibitory inunction was rendered
moot and academic.
Respondents would have this Court dismiss the petition on the *round that
petitioners had come to this Court without havin* previously sou*ht the :uashal of
the search warrants before respondent ud*e. /ndeed, petitioners, before impu*nin*
the validity of the warrants before this Court, should have filed a motion to :uash
said warrants in the court that issued them.
)
But this procedural flaw
notwithstandin*, we ta1e co*ni+ance of this petition in view of the seriousness and
ur*ency of the constitutional issues raised not to mention the public interest
*enerated by the search of the 89e .orum8 offices, which was televised in Channel %
and widely publici+ed in all metropolitan dailies. ?he e-istence of this special
circumstance ustifies this Court to e-ercise its inherent power to suspend its rules. /n
the words of the revered Mr. )ustice Abad 7antos in the case of ). Vda. de *rdoveza
v. $a"undo,
4
8it is always in the power of the court !7upreme Court# to suspend its
rules or to e-cept a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of
ustice re:uire it...8.
Respondents li1ewise ur*e dismissal of the petition on *round of laches.
Considerable stress is laid on the fact that while said search warrants were issued on
$ecember %, &'(", the instant petition impu*nin* the same was filed only on )une
&3, &'(2 or after the lapse of a period of more than si- !3# months.
;aches is failure or ne*li*ence for an unreasonable and une-plained len*th of time to
do that which, by e-ercisin* due dili*ence, could or should have been done earlier. /t
is ne*li*ence or omission to assert a ri*ht within a reasonable time, warrantin* a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to
assert it.
*
Petitioners, in their Consolidated Reply, e-plained the reason for the delay in the
filin* of the petition thusA
Respondents should not find fault, as they now do !p. &, Answer, p.
2, Manifestation# with the fact that the Petition was filed on )une
&3, &'(2, more than half a year after the petitioners@ premises had
been raided.
?he climate of the times has *iven petitioners no other choice. /f
they had waited this lon* to brin* their case to court, it was
because they tried at first to e-haust other remedies. ?he events of
the past eleven fill years had tau*ht them that everythin* in this
country, from release of public funds to release of detained persons
from custody, has become a matter of e-ecutive benevolence or
lar*esse
Bence, as soon as they could, petitioners, upon su**estion of
persons close to the President, li1e .iscal .laminiano, sent a letter
to President Marcos, throu*h counsel Antonio Coronet as1in* the
return at least of the printin* e:uipment and vehicles. And after
such a letter had been sent, throu*h Col. Balbino C. $ie*o, Chief
/ntelli*ence and ;e*al <fficer of the Presidential 7ecurity
Command, they were further encoura*ed to hope that the latter
would yield the desired results.
After waitin* in vain for five !D# months, petitioners finally
decided to come to Court. !pp. &"2,&"4, Rollo#
Althou*h the reason *iven by petitioners may not be flatterin* to our udicial system,
9e find no *round to punish or chastise them for an error in ud*ment. <n the
contrary, the e-traudicial efforts e-erted by petitioners :uite evidently ne*ate the
presumption that they had abandoned their ri*ht to the possession of the sei+ed
property, thereby refutin* the char*e of laches a*ainst them.
Respondents also submit the theory that since petitioner )ose Bur*os, )r. had used
and mar1ed as evidence some of the sei+ed documents in Criminal Case No. 0,
>""(%", he is now estopped from challen*in* the validity of the search warrants. 9e
do not follow the lo*ic of respondents. ?hese documents lawfully belon* to
petitioner )ose Bur*os, )r. and he can do whatever he pleases with them, within le*al
bounds. ?he fact that he has used them as evidence does not and cannot in any way
affect the validity or invalidity of the search warrants assailed in this petition.
7everal and diverse reasons have been advanced by petitioners to nullify the search
warrants in :uestion.
&. Petitioners fault respondent ud*e for his alle*ed failure to conduct an e-amination
under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses, as mandated by the
above,:uoted constitutional provision as wen as 7ec. 4, Rule &"3 of the Rules of
Court .
6
?his obection, however, may properly be considered moot and academic, as
petitioners themselves conceded durin* the hearin* on Au*ust ', &'(2, that an
e-amination had indeed been conducted by respondent ud*e of Col. Abadilla and his
witnesses.
". 7earch 9arrants No. ">,("!a# and No. ">, ("!b# were used to search two distinct
placesA No. &', Road 2, Proect 3, 0ue+on City and %(4 5nits C 6 $, RM7 Buildin*,
0ue+on Avenue, 0ue+on City, respectively. <bection is interposed to the e-ecution
of 7earch 9arrant No. ">,("!b# at the latter address on the *round that the two
search warrants pinpointed only one place where petitioner )ose Bur*os, )r. was
alle*edly 1eepin* and concealin* the articles listed therein, i.e., No. &', Road 2,
Proect 3, 0ue+on City. ?his assertion is based on that portion of 7earch 9arrant No.
">, ("!b# which statesA
9hich have been used, and are bein* used as instruments and
means of committin* the crime of subversion penali+ed under P.$.
((D as amended and he is 1eepin* and concealin* the same at &'
Road 2, Proect 3, 0ue+on City.
?he defect pointed out is obviously a typo*raphical error. Precisely, two search
warrants were applied for and issued because the purpose and intent were to search
two distinct premises. /t would be :uite absurd and illo*ical for respondent ud*e to
have issued two warrants intended for one and the same place. Besides, the addresses
of the places sou*ht to be searched were specifically set forth in the application, and
since it was Col. Abadilla himself who headed the team which e-ecuted the search
warrants, the ambi*uity that mi*ht have arisen by reason of the typo*raphical error is
more apparent than real. ?he fact is that the place for which 7earch 9arrant No. ">,
("!b# was applied for was %"( 5nits C 6 $, RM7 Buildin*, 0ue+on Avenue,
0ue+on City, which address appeared in the openin* para*raph of the said
warrant.
+
<bviously this is the same place that respondent ud*e had in mind when
he issued 9arrant No. ">,(" !b#.
/n the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be
searched with sufficient particularity, it has been held 8that the e-ecutin* officer@s
prior 1nowled*e as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant. ?his would seem
to be especially true where the e-ecutin* officer is the affiant on whose affidavit the
warrant had issued, and when he 1nows that the ud*e who issued the warrant
intended the buildin* described in the affidavit, And it has also been said that the
e-ecutin* officer may loo1 to the affidavit in the official court file to resolve an
ambi*uity in the warrant as to the place to be searched.8
8
2. Another *round relied upon to annul the search warrants is the fact that althou*h
the warrants were directed a*ainst )ose Bur*os, )r. alone, articles b belon*in* to his
co,petitioners )ose Bur*os, 7r., Bayani 7oriano and the ). Bur*os Media 7ervices,
/nc. were sei+ed.
7ection ", Rule &"3 of the Rules of Court, enumerates the personal properties that
may be sei+ed under a search warrant, to witA
7ec. ". Personal Property to be sei+ed. E A search warrant may be
issued for the search and sei+ure of the followin* personal
propertyA
!a# Property subect of the offenseF
!b# Property stolen or embe++led and other
proceeds or fruits of the offenseF and
!c# Property used or intended to be used as the
means of committin* an offense.
?he above rule does not re:uire that the property to be sei+ed should be owned by
the person a*ainst whom the search warrant is directed. /t may or may not be owned
by him. /n fact, under subsection !b# of the above,:uoted 7ection ", one of the
properties that may be sei+ed is stolen property. Necessarily, stolen property must be
owned by one other than the person in whose possession it may be at the time of the
search and sei+ure. <wnership, therefore, is of no conse:uence, and it is sufficient
that the person a*ainst whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the
property sou*ht to be sei+ed, as petitioner )ose Bur*os, )r. was alle*ed to have in
relation to the articles and property sei+ed under the warrants.
4. Neither is there merit in petitioners@ assertion that real properties were sei+ed
under the disputed warrants. 5nder Article 4&D!D# of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, 8machinery, receptables, instruments or implements intended by the
owner of the tenement for an industry or wor1s which may be carried on in a
buildin* or on a piece of land and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said
industry or wor1s8 are considered immovable property. /n +avao Sa,"i'' )o. v.
)asti''o
9
where this le*al provision was invo1ed, this Court ruled that machinery
which is movable by nature becomes immobili+ed when placed by the owner of the
tenement, property or plant, but not so when placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or any
other person havin* only a temporary ri*ht, unless such person acted as the a*ent of
the owner.
/n the case at bar, petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land andGor
buildin* on which the machineries were placed. ?his bein* the case, the machineries
in :uestion, while in fact bolted to the *round remain movable property susceptible
to sei+ure under a search warrant.
D. ?he :uestioned search warrants were issued by respondent ud*e upon application
of Col. Rolando N. Abadilla /ntelli*ence <fficer of the P.C. Metrocom.
1,
?he
application was accompanied by the )oint Affidavit of Aleandro M. =utierre+ and
Pedro 5. ?an*o, 11 members of the Metrocom /ntelli*ence and 7ecurity =roup under
Col. Abadilla which conducted a surveillance of the premises prior to the filin* of the
application for the search warrants on $ecember %, &'(".
/t is contended by petitioners, however, that the abovementioned documents could
not have provided sufficient basis for the findin* of a probable cause upon which a
warrant may validly issue in accordance with 7ection 2, Article /C of the &'%2
Constitution which providesA
7EC. 2. ... and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
e-cept upon probable cause to be determined by the ud*e, or such
other responsible officer as may be authori+ed by law, after
e-amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describin* the place to
be searched and the persons or thin*s to be sei+ed.
9e find petitioners@ thesis impressed with merit. Probable cause for a search is
defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the obects
sou*ht in connection with the offense are in the place sou*ht to be searched. And
when the search warrant applied for is directed a*ainst a newspaper publisher or
editor in connection with the publication of subversive materials, as in the case at
bar, the application andGor its supportin* affidavits must contain a specification,
statin* with particularity the alle*ed subversive material he has published or is
intendin* to publish. Mere *enerali+ation will not suffice. ?hus, the broad statement
in Col. Abadilla@s application that petitioner 8is in possession or has in his control
printin* e:uipment and other paraphernalia, news publications and other documents
which were used and are all continuously bein* used as a means of committin* the
offense of subversion punishable under Presidential $ecree ((D, as
amended ...8 12 is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisfy the re:uirements of
probable cause. Bereft of such particulars as would ustify a findin* of the e-istence
of probable cause, said alle*ation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search
warrant and it was a *rave error for respondent ud*e to have done so.
E:ually insufficient as basis for the determination of probable cause is the statement
contained in the oint affidavit of Aleandro M. =utierre+ and Pedro 5. ?an*o, 8that
the evidence *athered and collated by our unit clearly shows that the premises above,
mentioned and the articles and thin*s above,described were used and are
continuously bein* used for subversive activities in conspiracy with, and to promote
the obective of, ille*al or*ani+ations such as the ;i*ht,a,.ire Movement, Movement
for .ree Philippines, and April 3 Movement.8 1)
/n mandatin* that 8no warrant shall issue e-cept upon probable cause to be
determined by the ud*e, ... after e-amination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produceF 14 the Constitution re:uires no less
than personal 1nowled*e by the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which
the issuance of a search warrant may be ustified. /n A'varez v. )ourt o% -irst
.nstance, 1* this Court ruled that 8the oath re:uired must refer to the truth of the
facts within the personal 1nowled*e of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the
purpose thereof is to convince the committin* ma*istrate, not the individual ma1in*
the affidavit and see1in* the issuance of the warrant, of the e-istence of probable
cause.8 As couched, the :uoted averment in said oint affidavit filed before
respondent ud*e hardly meets the test of sufficiency established by this Court in
Alvare+ case.
Another factor which ma1es the search warrants under consideration constitutionally
obectionable is that they are in the nature of *eneral warrants. ?he search warrants
describe the articles sou*ht to be sei+ed in this wiseA
&# All printin* e:uipment, paraphernalia, paper, in1, photo
He:uipment, typewriters, cabinets, tables,
communicationsGrecordin* e:uipment, tape recorders, dictaphone
and the li1e used andGor connected in the printin* of the 89E
.<R5M8 newspaper and any and all documents communication,
letters and facsimile of prints related to the 89E .<R5M8
newspaper.
"# 7ubversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, boo1s, and other
publication to promote the obectives and piurposes of the
subversive or*ani+ation 1nown as Movement for .ree Philippines,
;i*ht,a,.ire Movement and April 3 MovementF and,
2# Motor vehicles used in the distributionGcirculation of the 89E
.<R5M8 and other subversive materials and propa*anda, more
particularly,
&# ?oyota,Corolla, colored yellow with Plate No.
NIA ('"F
"# $A?75N pic1,up colored white with Plate
No. NIC '3'
2# A delivery truc1 with Plate No. NB7 D"4F
4# ?<J<?A,?AMARA9, colored white with
Plate No. PBP 33DF and,
D# ?<J<?A Bi,;u-, pic1,up truc1 with Plate
No. N=C 4"% with mar1in* 8Ba*on* 7ilan*.8
/n Stan%ord v. State o% Te/as 16 the search warrant which authori+ed the search for
8boo1s, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures, recordin*s
and other written instruments concernin* the Communist Party in ?e-as,8 was
declared void by the 5.7. 7upreme Court for bein* too *eneral. /n li1e manner,
directions to 8sei+e any evidence in connectionwith the violation of 7$C &2,2%>2 or
otherwise8 have been held too *eneral, and that portion of a search warrant which
authori+ed the sei+ure of any 8paraphernalia which could be used to violate 7ec. D4,
&'% of the Connecticut =eneral 7tatutes !the statute dealin* with the crime of
conspiracy#8 was held to be a *eneral warrant, and therefore invalid. 1+ ?he
description of the articles sou*ht to be sei+ed under the search warrants in :uestion
cannot be characteri+ed differently.
/n the 7tanford case, the 5.7. 7upreme Courts calls to mind a notable chapter in
En*lish historyA the era of disaccord between the ?udor =overnment and the En*lish
Press, when 8<fficers of the Crown were *iven rovin* commissions to search where
they pleased in order to suppress and destroy the literature of dissent both Catholic
and Puritan Reference herein to such historical episode would not be relevant for it is
not the policy of our *overnment to suppress any newspaper or publication that
spea1s with 8the voice of non,conformity8 but poses no clear and imminent dan*er
to state security.
As heretofore stated, the premises searched were the business and printin* offices of
the 8Metropolitan Mail8 and the 89e .orum newspapers. As a conse:uence of the
search and sei+ure, these premises were padloc1ed and sealed, with the further result
that the printin* and publication of said newspapers were discontinued.
7uch closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the
freedom of the press *uaranteed under the fundamental law, 18 and constitutes a
virtual denial of petitioners@ freedom to e-press themselves in print. ?his state of
bein* is patently anathematic to a democratic framewor1 where a free, alert and even
militant press is essential for the political enli*htenment and *rowth of the citi+enry.
Respondents would ustify the continued sealin* of the printin* machines on the
*round that they have been se:uestered under 7ection ( of Presidential $ecree No.
((D, as amended, which authori+es 8the se:uestration of the property of any person,
natural or artificial, en*a*ed in subversive activities a*ainst the *overnment and its
duly constituted authorities ... in accordance with implementin* rules and re*ulations
as may be issued by the 7ecretary of National $efense.8 /t is doubtful however, if
se:uestration could validly be effected in view of the absence of any implementin*
rules and re*ulations promul*ated by the Minister of National $efense.
Besides, in the $ecember &>, &'(" issue of the +ai' E/&ress, it was reported that no
less than President Marcos himself denied the re:uest of the military authorities to
se:uester the property sei+ed from petitioners on $ecember %, &'(". ?husA
?he President denied a re:uest flied by *overnment prosecutors for
se:uestration of the 9E .<R5M newspaper and its printin*
presses, accordin* to /nformation Minister =re*orio 7. Cendana.
<n the basis of court orders, *overnment a*ents went to the 9e
.orum offices in 0ue+on City and too1 a detailed inventory of the
e:uipment and all materials in the premises.
CendaKa said that because of the denial the newspaper and its
e:uipment remain at the disposal of the owners, subect to the
discretion of the court. 19
?hat the property sei+ed on $ecember %, &'(" had not been se:uestered is further
confirmed by the reply of then .orei*n Minister Carlos P. Romulo to the letter dated
.ebruary &>, &'(2 of 5.7. Con*ressman ?ony P. Ball addressed to President Marcos,
e-pressin* alarm over the 89E .<R5M 8 case.
2,
/n this reply dated .ebruary &&,
&'(2, Minister Romulo statedA
". Contrary to reports, President Marcos turned down the
recommendation of our authorities to close the paper@s printin*
facilities and confiscate the e:uipment and materials it uses.
21
/N C/E9 <. ?BE .<RE=</N=, 7earch 9arrants Nos. ">,("!a# and ">,("!b#
issued by respondent ud*e on $ecember %, &'(" are hereby declared null and void
and are accordin*ly set aside. ?he prayer for a writ of mandatory inunction for the
return of the sei+ed articles is hereby *ranted and all articles sei+ed thereunder are
hereby ordered released to petitioners. No costs.
7< <R$ERE$.