Betoy, Sr. vs. Coliflores

A judge commits gross ignorance of the law when he issues a search warrant for illegal possession of firearms without eliciting evidence that the applicant or witnesses have personal knowledge that the subject lacks the required license or permit, and when he fails to ascertain whether a return was made and to require an inventory of the seized property under Administrative Circular No. 13.

The administrative matter concerns the conduct of Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores in relation to Search and Seizure Order No. 0854, issued in connection with the alleged illegal possession of firearms and ammunition by Bernardo P. Betoy, Sr. and his companions. The governing standards are the constitutional and procedural requirements for probable cause in search warrant proceedings, Administrative Circular No. 13 on the issuance and implementation of search warrants, and the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Bernardo P. Betoy, Sr. and his companions were the subjects of Search and Seizure Order (S/W #0854) dated September 17, 1999, issued by Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores in connection with the alleged illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The warrant was based on the application and depositions of Police Inspector Cesar Kyamko Arquillano and his witnesses, SPO2 Rex Lomusad Cabrera and SPO1 Jesus Cortuna Rojas. According to the depositions, an asset reported to the police the presence of persons armed with a Cal. 357 revolver, two M16 rifles, four Cal. 38 revolvers, three Cal. 45 pistols, four shotguns, and assorted ammunition; the police conducted surveillance and casing on August 30, 1999 by renting a room in a neighboring house, where they saw the suspects.

On July 12, 2000, Betoy signed a Letter-Complaint charging Judge Coliflores with Grave Abuse of Discretion and Authority, Conduct Unbecoming as a Judge, and Gross Negligence Resulting to Procedural Lapses (Dereliction of Duty). Attached was an affidavit executed by Betoy’s wife, Lucia Betoy, citing paragraphs 30, 32, 35, and 36. The affidavit alleged that the search warrant should be declared null and void because it violated the Constitution and relied solely on the affidavits of police officers, which were hearsay and not based on information personally known to the judge; that the judge failed to conduct a probing and exhaustive examination to determine probable cause; that almost nine months after September 21, 1999, the judge did not conduct a judicial inquiry from the implementing law enforcement officers as to the whereabouts of the seized contraband, which was required 48 hours after service; and that his inaction showed consent to the arbitrary and indiscriminate use of the warrant. The affidavit also alleged that the statements in the December 8, 1999 Resolution of Prosecutor Rustico D. Paderanga were unfounded, arbitrary, and perjured, and that the police officers were liable for perjury.

In his Comment dated September 5, 2000, Judge Coliflores denied the charges. He argued that there was no proof from the allegations on the face of the deposition that the residence was an armory; that the issuing judge could not go beyond what was alleged in the application, since only probable cause was necessary; and that he personally conducted the investigation on the application through searching questions and answers in writing and sworn before him, complying with statutory and constitutional requirements. He further stated that the warrant could only be declared null and void if a motion was filed in court and a hearing conducted, and that the issuing judge had no physical control over the manner the warrant was implemented. He noted that he granted motions to release a shotgun and an air rifle.

The case was referred to Executive Judge Rosabella M. Tormis, who found respondent not guilty of the charges relative to the issuance of the search warrant. The Office of the Court Administrator, however, found that respondent had established probable cause but was guilty of gross ignorance of the law for failing to conduct a judicial inquiry as to the whereabouts of the seized firearms and ammunitions. The OCA observed that respondent personally examined the applicant and his witnesses, but his questions were not probing and exhaustive; that P/Insp. Arquillano did not categorically state that he saw the firearms inside the house; and that no return of the warrant was made, yet respondent did not summon P/Insp. Arquillano to explain why no return was made.

The Supreme Court found that the depositions of P/Insp. Arquillano, SPO2 Cabrera, and SPO1 Rojas did not indicate personal knowledge that Betoy and his companions had no license or permit to possess firearms and ammunition. The applicant and witnesses merely recounted information from an asset, surveillance, and their observation of the suspects with firearms; their statements that the firearms were illegally possessed amounted to personal belief, not personal knowledge. This belief was partly proven wrong when one seized firearm, a Shooter 12-gauge shotgun with Serial No. Sam 01109, was found to be duly licensed, compelling respondent to release it together with 50 rounds of shotgun ammunition. The Court also found no evidence that respondent required an accurate and complete inventory of the seized firearms or inquired into their whereabouts after the warrant was issued.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion and Invalid Warrant: Complainant charged respondent with grave abuse of discretion and authority, conduct unbecoming a judge, and gross negligence resulting in procedural lapses; he alleged that Search and Seizure Order No. 0854 was null and void because it violated the Constitution and relied solely on the affidavits of police officers, which were hearsay and not based on personal knowledge.
• Failure to Conduct Probing Examination: Complainant maintained that the judge failed to conduct a probing and exhaustive examination of the applicant and witnesses to determine probable cause, thereby allowing arbitrary and indiscriminate use of the warrant, and that the police officers should be held liable for perjury.
• Failure to Inquire into Seized Items: Complainant alleged that almost nine months after September 21, 1999, the judge did not conduct a judicial inquiry from the implementing law enforcement officers as to the whereabouts of the seized contraband, despite the requirement of inquiry 48 hours after service, and that his inaction showed consent to the arbitrary and indiscriminate use of the warrant.

• No Proof of Armory / Probable Cause: Respondent argued that there was no proof from the allegations on the face of the deposition that the residence was an armory; the issuing judge could not go beyond what was alleged in the application, and only probable cause was necessary.
• Personal Examination and Compliance: Respondent maintained that he personally conducted the investigation on the application through searching questions and answers in writing and sworn before him, complying with statutory and constitutional requirements.
• Proper Remedy to Void Warrant: Respondent argued that the search warrant could only be declared null and void if a motion was filed in court and a hearing conducted.
• No Control Over Implementation: Respondent contended that the issuing judge had no physical control over the manner the search warrant was implemented; his duty concerned compliance with the requirements for issuance.
• Release of Seized Items: Respondent noted that he granted motions to release a shotgun and an air rifle.

• Probable Cause for Search Warrant: Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law in issuing Search and Seizure Order No. 0854 despite the failure of the applicant and witnesses to establish personal knowledge that complainant and his companions lacked a license or permit to possess firearms and ammunition.
• Judicial Inquiry on Return and Seized Items: Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law in failing to ascertain whether a return of the search warrant was made and to require an inventory or explanation for the whereabouts of the seized firearms and ammunition.
• Administrative Liability and Penalty: Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or procedure and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.

• Probable Cause for Search Warrant: No. The judge failed to elicit evidence that the applicant or witnesses had personal knowledge that the subjects lacked the required license or permit; mere personal belief that firearms were illegally possessed is insufficient for probable cause.
• Judicial Inquiry on Return and Seized Items: Yes. The judge was remiss in failing to ascertain whether a return was made and to summon the person to whom the warrant was issued to explain the absence of a return; the applicable rule was Guideline No. 5(g) of Administrative Circular No. 13, not Section 12(b), Rule 126.
• Administrative Liability and Penalty: Yes. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure is a serious charge under Section 8(9), Rule 140; a fine of ₱20,000 was imposed, deductible from retirement benefits.

• Probable Cause for Search Warrant: Probable cause for a valid search warrant consists of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought are in the place to be searched; it must be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or witnesses and not mere hearsay. For illegal possession of firearms, probable cause requires a belief not only that the person possesses a firearm but also that he lacks the license or permit to possess it. In Nala vs. Judge Barroso, Jr., the Court held that a no-license certification from the appropriate government agency is the best evidence to prove the absence of a license. Here, the depositions of P/Insp. Arquillano, SPO2 Cabrera, and SPO1 Rojas showed only that an asset reported armed persons and that the police saw the suspects with firearms; none stated personal knowledge that Betoy and his companions had no license or permit. Their statements that the firearms were illegally possessed were personal belief, not personal knowledge, and this belief was partly disproven when one seized shotgun was found licensed. Respondent judge should have probed further or required a certification, but he did not, thus falling short of the competence required by Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Judicial Inquiry on Return and Seized Items: Under Guideline No. 5(g) of Administrative Circular No. 13, a search warrant is valid for ten days from issuance, and thereafter the issuing judge must ascertain whether a return has been made; if none, he must summon the person to whom the warrant was issued to explain why no return was made. If a return was made, the judge must ensure that a detailed receipt or inventory of the seized property is filed and that the property is delivered to him. The warrant in this case was issued on September 17, 1999, and no return was shown. Respondent did not refute the allegation that he failed to inquire from the implementing officers as to the whereabouts of the seized firearms, and there was no evidence that he required an accurate and complete inventory. His claim that he had no physical control over implementation did not excuse him, because his duty as magistrate did not end upon issuance of the warrant. The Court held that the applicable rule was Administrative Circular No. 13, not Section 12(b), Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, because the amendments incorporating the latter took effect only on December 1, 2000, after the warrant was issued.
• Administrative Liability and Penalty: Gross ignorance of the law or procedure is classified as a serious charge under Section 8(9), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended. Section 11(A) of the same Rule authorizes a fine of more than ₱20,000 but not more than ₱40,000, suspension, or dismissal, among other penalties. The Court found respondent guilty for failing to observe the rules governing the determination of probable cause and for non-compliance with Administrative Circular No. 13. It noted that he had previously been reminded in Tugot vs. Judge Coliflores, where he was fined ₱20,000 for gross ignorance of the law and procedure, and cited Dizon, Jr. vs. Judge Veneracion, where a judge was found guilty of gross ignorance for failing to observe the rules on probable cause. The OCA’s recommended fine of ₱20,000 was deemed just and reasonable.

• Probable cause for a search warrant — Probable cause consists of such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. It must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay. In this case, the Court found that the applicant and witnesses did not have personal knowledge that the subjects lacked a firearms license, so probable cause was not sufficiently established.
• Personal knowledge vs. personal belief in illegal possession of firearms — For illegal possession of firearms, probable cause requires facts and circumstances leading a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a person is in possession of a firearm and that he does not have the license or permit to possess the same. Testimony that firearms are illegally possessed, without verification or certification from the appropriate government agency, is merely personal belief, not personal knowledge. The Court applied this doctrine because the police witnesses only saw the firearms and did not establish the absence of a license.
• Best evidence of lack of license — A certification from the appropriate government agency that the subject has no license or permit to possess firearms is the best evidence obtainable to prove the absence of a license. The Court found that respondent judge failed to require such certification or to ask the applicant and witnesses whether they had personal knowledge of the lack of a license.
• Duty of issuing judge after issuance of search warrant — Under Guideline No. 5(g) of Administrative Circular No. 13, after the ten-day validity of the search warrant, the issuing judge must ascertain whether a return has been made; if none, he must summon the person to whom the warrant was issued to explain why no return was made; and if a return was made, he must ensure that a detailed receipt or inventory of the seized property is filed and that the property is delivered to him. The Court found respondent judge remiss for failing to comply with this duty.
• Gross ignorance of the law or procedure — Gross ignorance of the law or procedure is a serious charge under Section 8(9), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended. Judges are expected to exhibit more than a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules and to be conversant with basic legal principles and well-settled doctrines. The Court found respondent guilty because he failed to observe the rules governing probable cause and Administrative Circular No. 13.

• "The "probable cause" for a valid search warrant has been 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 objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. This probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay." — This passage defines probable cause and states the personal-knowledge requirement, which the Court used to find respondent judge’s examination insufficient.
• "In the case at bar, the search and seizure warrant was issued in connection with the offense of illegal possession of firearms, the elements of which are – (1) the existence of the subject firearm; and (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the license or permit to possess the same. Probable cause as applied to illegal possession of firearms would therefore be such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a person is in possession of a firearm and that he does not have the license or permit to possess the same." — This passage applies the probable-cause requirement specifically to illegal possession of firearms, the offense involved in the search warrant.
• "The statement of SPO2 Cabrera and SPO1 Rojas in their deposition that they personally saw the firearms illegally possessed by complainant and his companions does not constitute "personal knowledge" of the illegality of such possession; instead, it merely qualifies as "personal belief."" — This passage distinguishes personal knowledge from personal belief, the core reason the Court found probable cause inadequately established.
• "Respondent judge should know that his duty as a magistrate does not end when he issued the search warrant." — This passage states the basis for finding respondent remiss in failing to ascertain whether a return was made and to require an inventory of the seized property.

• Nala vs. Judge Barroso, Jr., 455 Phil. 999 (2003) — Controlling precedent; defined probable cause for a search warrant and held that for illegal possession of firearms, the absence of a license must be established by personal knowledge, with a no-license certification as best evidence. The Court applied it to find respondent failed to establish probable cause.
• Dizon, Jr. vs. Judge Veneracion, 391 Phil. 126 (2000) — Cited as precedent where a judge was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law for failure to observe the rules governing determination of probable cause; relied on to support respondent’s administrative liability.
• Tugot vs. Judge Coliflores — Prior administrative case against respondent; the Court had fined him ₱20,000 for gross ignorance of the law and procedure for failing to observe the period for preliminary conference. It was cited to show respondent had been previously reminded of judicial competence. Citation not provided in the text.
• Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) vs. Asuncion — Cited in Nala; voided a search warrant for illegal possession of firearms due to failure to prove probable cause, lack of personal knowledge of the absence of a license, and failure to attach a no-license certification. Citation not provided in the text.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct — Requires a judge to be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence. The Court found respondent violated this by failing to competently determine probable cause.
• Rule 3.01, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct — Requires a judge to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. The Court found respondent violated this by failing to probe the applicant and witnesses on the lack of a firearms license.
• Guideline No. 5(g), Administrative Circular No. 13 (October 1, 1985) — Requires the issuing judge, after the 10-day validity of the search warrant, to ascertain whether a return was made; if none, to summon the person to whom the warrant was issued to explain; and if a return was made, to ensure a detailed receipt/inventory and delivery of the seized property. The Court found respondent violated this guideline.
• Section 8(9), Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended — Classifies gross ignorance of the law or procedure as a serious charge. Used to classify respondent’s offense.
• Section 11(A), Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended — Provides the penalty for a serious charge, including a fine of more than ₱20,000 but not more than ₱40,000, suspension, or dismissal. The Court cited it in imposing the fine.
• Section 12(b), Rule 126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Cited by the OCA as the basis for respondent’s failure to conduct a judicial inquiry into the seized items, but the Court held it was not applicable because the amendments took effect on December 1, 2000, after the September 17, 1999 warrant.

Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban (Chairperson), Associate Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., and Minita V. Chico-Nazario.