ROAN VS.

GONZALES 145 SCRA 687 (1986)

FACTS
The challenged search warrant was issued by the respondent judge on May 10,
1984. The petitioner's house was searched two days later but none of the articles
listed in the warrant was discovered. However, the officers conducting the search
found in the premises one Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets which
they confiscated. They are now the bases of the charge against the petitioner.
Respondent Judge said that when PC Capt. Mauro P. Quinosa personally filed his
application for a search warrant on May 10, 1984, he appeared before him in the
company of his two (2) witnesses, Esmael Morada and Jesus Tohilida, both of
whom likewise presented to him their respective affidavits taken by Pat. Josue V.
Lining, a police investigator. As the application was not yet subscribed and sworn to,
he proceeded to examine Captain Quillosa on the contents thereof to ascertain,
among others, if he knew and understood the same. Afterwards, he subscribed and
swore to the same before him.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not the Respondent Judge failed to comply with the proper procedure in
issuing the Search Warrant.
HELD
Yes, mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient.
The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record. Such written deposition is
necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence
or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving it
if it will be found later that his declarations are false.
We, therefore, hold that the search warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of
the Judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the depositions in writing
and attaching them to the record, rendering the search warrant invalid. (See Rule
126, Sec 4)
The respondent judge also declared that he "saw no need to have applicant
Quillosa's deposition taken considering that he was applying for a search warrant on
the basis of the information provided by the witnesses whose depositions had
already been taken by the undersigned.

In other words, the applicant was asking for the issuance of the search warrant on
the basis of mere hearsay and not of information personally known to him, as
required by settled jurisprudence.
STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO
FACTS
Respondents issued, on different dates, 42 search warrants against petitioners
personally, and/or corporations for which they are officers directing peace officers to
search the persons of petitioners and premises of their offices, warehouses and/or
residences to search for personal properties books of accounts, financial records,
vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals,
typewriters, and other documents showing all business transactions including
disbursement receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and
Bobbins(cigarettes) as the subject of the offense for violations of Central Bank Act,
Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code, and Revised Penal Code.
Upon effecting the search in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and on
the respective residences of the petitioners, there seized documents, papers,
money and other records. Petitioners then were subjected to deportation
proceedings and were constrained to question the legality of the searches and
seizures as well as the admissibility of those seized as evidence against them.
On March 20, 1962, the SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and partially lifted
the same on June 29, 1962 with respect to some documents and papers.
HELD
Search warrants issued were violative of the Constitution and the Rules, thus, illegal
or being general warrants. There is no probable cause and warrant did not
particularly specify the things to be seized. The purpose of the requirement is to
avoid placing the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and
correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.
Document seized from an illegal search warrant is not admissible in court as a fruit
of a poisonous tee. However, they could not be returned, except if warranted by the
circumstances.
Petitioners were not the proper party to question the validity and return of those
taken from the corporations for which they acted as officers as they are treated as
personality different from that of the corporation.