Abiang v. People

A search warrant is void if the records fail to show that the issuing judge personally examined the applicant and witnesses to determine probable cause, and any evidence obtained pursuant to such a warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Petitioner Antonio Abiang y Cabonce was charged with illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition under Republic Act No. 10591. The charge stemmed from items—a .38 caliber revolver and live ammunition—allegedly discovered inside his residence during the implementation of Search Warrant No. 033-17-FVV. The petitioner entered a plea of not guilty, interposing the defenses of denial and frame-up, claiming the evidence was planted by the police officers.

• The Charge and Evidence: Petitioner was charged based on a firearm and ammunition seized from his house on May 31, 2019, pursuant to Search Warrant No. 033-17-FVV issued by Executive Judge Frazierwin V. Viterbo. The prosecution presented a Certification from the Firearms and Explosives Office stating the petitioner was not a licensed firearm holder.
• The Search Implementation: A police team implemented the warrant at around 4:20 a.m. They were accompanied by a Barangay Captain and a Kagawad. The police officers testified that after introducing themselves and explaining the warrant, they entered the petitioner's house. Inside the bedroom, Police Corporal Noel D. Pader found a revolver with live ammunition inside a sling bag placed within a black basin containing clothes.
• The Defense's Version: Petitioner testified that police officers forcibly entered his house before the barangay officials arrived. He denied ownership of the firearm, claiming the police must have placed it there. The Barangay Captain corroborated that when he arrived, the police were already inside and taking pictures of the evidence.
• Lower Court Findings: Both the RTC and CA found the prosecution's evidence credible, giving weight to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers and the issuing judge. They convicted the petitioner.

• Invalid Search Warrant: Petitioner argued the search warrant was void because there was no record or stenographic notes showing the issuing judge propounded searching questions to determine probable cause. The application process and the identity of the applicant were undisclosed.
• No Waiver of Objection: Petitioner maintained he did not waive his right to question the warrant's legality, as his objection to the admissibility of the evidence during trial sufficed.
• Inadmissible Evidence: Petitioner contended that all items seized pursuant to the invalid warrant were inadmissible, leaving no evidence to support a conviction.

• Presumption of Regularity: Respondent (People of the Philippines) countered that the issuing judge and the police officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties.
• Waiver of Objection: Respondent argued that the petitioner waived his right to assail the search warrant by failing to file a timely motion to quash or motion to suppress evidence before the trial court.
• Valid Jurisdiction and Probable Cause: Respondent maintained the trial court had jurisdiction and that the search warrant was validly issued based on the certification of the petitioner's lack of a firearm license and the judge's personal examination.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: Whether the search warrant was validly issued, specifically whether probable cause was determined through a personal examination by the judge as required by the Constitution.
• Waiver of Constitutional Right: Whether the petitioner's failure to file a pre-trial motion to quash the search warrant or suppress evidence constituted a waiver of his right to challenge its validity.
• Admissibility of Evidence: Whether the firearm and ammunition seized were admissible in evidence against the petitioner.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: The search warrant was void. The records contained no evidence—such as depositions, transcripts, or affidavits—that the issuing judge conducted the required personal and thorough examination of the complainant and witnesses to determine probable cause. The lone statement in the warrant and its issuing order that an examination was conducted was insufficient. The absence of such records is inconsistent with the regular performance of judicial duties.
• Waiver of Constitutional Right: The procedural requirement to object to a search warrant via a pre-trial motion is not absolute. The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is paramount. In cases of blatant constitutional violations, such as a warrant issued without probable cause, the failure to make a timely objection does not constitute a waiver. Courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against the waiver of fundamental rights.
• Admissibility of Evidence: The firearm and ammunition were inadmissible. Pursuant to the constitutional exclusionary rule, any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Since the search warrant was void, the search and seizure were unlawful, rendering the physical evidence inadmissible. With no other evidence to prove possession, an acquittal was warranted.

• Exclusionary Rule (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree) — Evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The Court applied this doctrine to exclude the firearm and ammunition, as they were seized pursuant to a void search warrant.
• Requisites for a Valid Search Warrant — A search warrant must be issued upon a finding of probable cause determined personally by a judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses. The Court clarified that while transcripts of the examination are ideal, their absence can be cured only if the records contain particular facts and circumstances the judge considered for his independent evaluation. Here, the complete lack of such records invalidated the warrant.
• Waiver of Fundamental Rights Not Presumed — The relinquishment of a constitutional right must be clear, convincing, and voluntary. Procedural rules cannot diminish substantial rights. The Court held that the petitioner's failure to file a pre-trial motion did not waive his right to challenge a fundamentally defective warrant, as the violation was blatant and the right is fundamental.

• "The absence of any record of how the issuing judge determined probable cause is inconsistent with the regular performance of duties and contradicts an assurance of a 'probing and exhaustive' examination of the witnesses." — This passage underscores that the burden to demonstrate regularity falls on the prosecution, and a silent record defeats that presumption.
• "Procedural rules can neither diminish nor modify substantial rights; their non-compliance should therefore not serve to validate a warrant that was issued in disregard of the constitutional requirements." — This articulates the hierarchy of constitutional rights over procedural technicalities, justifying the relaxation of the timely objection rule in this instance.

• Ogayon v. People, 768 Phil. 272 (2015) — Controlling precedent applied by the Court. It established that a search warrant is void if the records lack any evidence that the issuing judge conducted a personal examination to determine probable cause, and that a failure to timely object does not validate such a void warrant.
• Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, 302 Phil. 273 (1994) — Cited for the procedural rule that objections to a search warrant's legality may be raised via a motion to quash or a motion to suppress evidence. However, the Court distinguished it by emphasizing that this rule yields to the higher constitutional imperative in cases of fundamental defect.
• Dabon v. People, 824 Phil. 108 (2018) — Followed for its ruling that procedural technicalities regarding the timeliness of objections may be brushed aside to protect the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

• Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court applied this provision to invalidate the search warrant for lack of a personal judicial determination of probable cause.
• Article III, Section 3(2), 1987 Constitution — The exclusionary rule. Applied to declare the seized firearm and ammunition inadmissible in evidence.
• Rule 126, Section 14, Rules of Court — Provides the procedural mechanism for filing a motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence. The Court discussed but ultimately held that non-compliance with this procedure did not bar the petitioner's constitutional challenge.

• Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (Chairperson)
• Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez
• Justice Mario V. Lopez
• Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr.