Soriano Mata vs. Bayona

A search warrant is invalid and tainted with illegality when the issuing judge fails to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and to attach them to the record, as required by Section 4 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, even if the judge claims to have examined the applicants under oath. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are not sufficient; the written deposition is necessary for the judge to properly determine the existence of probable cause and to hold the person giving it liable for perjury if his declarations are later found false.

Petitioner Soriano Mata was accused in Criminal Case No. 4298-CC before the City Court of Ormoc of violating Presidential Decree No. 810, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1306, for allegedly offering, taking, and arranging bets on the Jai Alai game by selling illegal tickets known as "Masiao tickets" without authority from the Philippine Jai Alai & Amusement Corporation or from government authorities. The case involved the constitutional requirement that no search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.

Petitioner Soriano Mata was charged in Criminal Case No. 4298-CC before the City Court of Ormoc with violating Presidential Decree No. 810, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1306, for allegedly offering, taking, and arranging bets on the Jai Alai game by selling illegal tickets known as "Masiao tickets" without authority from the Philippine Jai Alai & Amusement Corporation or from government authorities. A search warrant was issued by respondent Judge Josephine K. Bayona based on an application for search warrant and a joint affidavit of private respondents Bernardo Goles and Reynaldo Mayote, members of the Intelligence Section of 352nd PC Co./Police District II INP, which were allegedly subscribed and sworn to before the Clerk of Court of respondent Judge.

During the hearing of the criminal case, petitioner discovered that the search warrant and other pertinent papers connected to its issuance could not be found in the records of the case. He inquired from the City Fiscal about their whereabouts, and respondent Judge replied, "it is with the court," after which the Judge handed the records to the Fiscal who attached them to the records. Petitioner then filed a motion to quash and annul the search warrant and for the return of the articles seized, citing Section 4 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Respondent Judge denied the motion on March 1, 1979, stating that the court had made a thorough investigation and examination under oath of Goles and Mayote, that the court made a certification to that effect, and that the failure to attach documents relating to the search warrant to the record of the criminal case immediately was of no moment since the rule does not specify when these documents are to be attached. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to file the instant petition with the Supreme Court.

Petitioner claimed that when he examined all the relevant papers connected with the issuance of the search warrant, he did not find any certification at the back of the joint affidavit of the complainants. He was furnished certified true copies of the affidavits by the Clerk of Court, but these did not bear any certification at the back. His xerox copy of the joint affidavit likewise did not show the certification of respondent Judge. Respondent Judge admitted, while insisting that she examined the applicants thoroughly, that "she did not take the deposition of Mayote and Goles because to have done so would be to hold a judicial proceeding which will be open and public," and that the persons subject of the intended raid would disappear and move their illegal operations elsewhere.

• Invalidity of the Search Warrant: Petitioner argued that the search warrant issued by respondent Judge was invalid for failure to comply with the requisites of the Constitution and the Rules of Court, specifically because it was based merely on an application and joint affidavit that were subscribed and sworn to before the Clerk of Court, not before the Judge herself.
• Failure to Attach Papers: Petitioner contended that the necessary papers pertinent to the issuance of the search warrant were not attached to the records of Criminal Case No. 4298-CC, and that no certification appeared at the back of the joint affidavit of the complainants, casting doubt on whether the required examination under oath was actually conducted.
• Return of Seized Articles: Petitioner prayed that the search warrant be declared invalid and all the articles confiscated under such warrant be declared inadmissible as evidence in the case or in any proceedings on the matter.

• Compliance with Examination Requirement: Respondent Judge argued that she made a thorough investigation and examination under oath of Bernardo U. Goles and Reynaldo T. Mayote, and that she made a certification to that effect.
• Timing of Attachment: Respondent Judge contended that the failure to attach documents relating to the search warrant to the record of the criminal case immediately was of no moment, considering that the rule does not specify when these documents are to be attached to the records.
• Justification by Urgency: Respondent Judge impressed upon the Court that the urgency to stop illegal gambling that lures every man, woman, and child, and even the lowliest laborer, justified her action, and that she thought it more prudent not to conduct the taking of deposition which is done usually and publicly in the courtroom, to prevent the persons subject of the intended raid from disappearing and moving their illegal operations elsewhere.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: Whether the search warrant issued by respondent Judge is invalid for failure to comply with the constitutional and statutory requisites, specifically the failure to take depositions in writing of the complainant and witnesses and to attach them to the record.
• Return of Seized Articles: Whether the articles seized under the illegal search warrant should be returned to petitioner notwithstanding the warrant's invalidity.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: Yes, the search warrant is tainted with illegality and is invalid. The Judge failed to conform with the essential requisites of taking the depositions in writing and attaching them to the record, as required by Section 4 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, which implements the constitutional mandate that no search warrant shall issue but upon probable cause determined by the Judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
• Return of Seized Articles: No, the return of the things seized cannot be ordered. Following Castro vs. Pabalan, the illegality of the search warrant does not call for the return of the things seized, the possession of which is prohibited.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: The Constitution requires that no search warrant shall issue but upon probable cause to be determined by the Judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Section 4 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court provides more emphatically that the judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and to 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, and to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false. The Judge's insistence that she examined the complainants under oath became dubious by petitioner's claim that no certification appeared at the back of the joint affidavit, and this doubt was confirmed by respondent Judge's own admission that she did not take the deposition of Mayote and Goles because to have done so would be to hold a judicial proceeding which will be open and public. The term "depositions" in its technical and appropriate sense is limited to written testimony of a witness given in the course of a judicial proceeding in advance of the trial or hearing upon oral examination. The examination or investigation which must be under oath may not be in public and may even be held in the secrecy of the Judge's chambers, but far more important is that the examination or investigation is not merely routinary but one that is thorough and elicits the required information, and it must be under oath and must be in writing. Nothing can justify the issuance of the search warrant but the fulfillment of the legal requisites. In issuing a search warrant, the Judge must strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution and the statutory provisions, and a liberal construction should be given in favor of the individual to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation of, the rights secured by the Constitution. No presumption of regularity is to be invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to justify it.
• Return of Seized Articles: While the search warrant is illegal, the return of the things seized cannot be ordered. In Castro vs. Pabalan, it was held that the illegality of the search warrant does not call for the return of the things seized, the possession of which is prohibited. The articles seized—stock of "masiao" tickets, "masiao" issue tickets, bet money, control pad or "masiao" numbers, and stamping pad with rubber stamp marked Ormoc City Jai-Alai—are items whose possession is prohibited by law, and thus cannot be returned to petitioner.

• Requisites for a Valid Search Warrant — Under the Constitution, no search warrant shall issue but upon probable cause to be determined by the Judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Section 4 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court requires that the judge must personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce, take their depositions in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him. Mere affidavits are not sufficient; the written deposition is necessary for the judge to properly determine probable cause and to hold the person giving it liable for perjury if his declarations are later found false. The examination must be under oath and must be in writing, and while it may be conducted in the secrecy of the Judge's chambers, it must be thorough and elicit the required information.
• Strict Construction in Favor of Individual Rights — In issuing a search warrant, the Judge must strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution and the statutory provisions. A liberal construction should be given in favor of the individual to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation of, the rights secured by the Constitution. No presumption of regularity is to be invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to justify it.
• Non-Return of Seized Prohibited Items — The illegality of a search warrant does not call for the return of the things seized, the possession of which is prohibited by law. Even when a search warrant is declared illegal, articles that are contraband or whose possession is prohibited cannot be ordered returned to the person from whom they were seized.

• "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 to attach them to the record." — This passage states the core ratio decidendi: the mandatory nature of taking written depositions and attaching them to the record, which the respondent Judge failed to do, rendering the search warrant invalid.
• "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." — This explains the purpose behind the written deposition requirement, connecting it to the determination of probable cause and the perjury sanction.
• "The examination or investigation which must be under oath may not be in public. It may even be held in the secrecy of his chambers. Far more important is that the examination or investigation is not merely routinary but one that is thorough and elicit the required information. To repeat, it must be under oath and must be in writing." — This clarifies that the examination need not be public but must be thorough, under oath, and in writing, rejecting the respondent Judge's justification for not taking depositions.
• "While the power to search and seize is necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government." — Quoted from Asian Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Herrera, this underscores that the enforcement of no statute justifies indifference to constitutional rights, supporting the strict compliance requirement.

• Asian Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Herrera, 54 SCRA 312 — Cited for the principle that the power to search and seize must be exercised without transgressing constitutional rights, and that the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to basic principles of government.
• Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 64 Phil. 42 — Cited for the rule that a liberal construction should be given in favor of the individual to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation of, the rights secured by the Constitution.
• People vs. Veloso, 40 Phil. 169 — Cited for the principle that no presumption of regularity is to be invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to justify it.
• Castro vs. Pabalan, 70 SCRA 478 — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that the illegality of the search warrant does not call for the return of the things seized, the possession of which is prohibited.

• Section 2, Article IV, 1973 Constitution — Provides that no search warrant shall issue but upon probable cause to be determined by the Judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. This is the constitutional basis for the requirement that the Judge must examine the complainant and witnesses under oath before issuing a search warrant.
• Section 4, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court — Requires that the judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him. The respondent Judge's failure to comply with this rule rendered the search warrant invalid.
• Presidential Decree No. 810, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1306 — The statute under which petitioner was charged for offering, taking, and arranging bets on the Jai Alai game by selling illegal "Masiao tickets" without authority from the Philippine Jai Alai & Amusement Corporation or from government authorities.

Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., and Guerrero, JJ., concurred. Aquino and Escolin, JJ., concurred in the result. Abad Santos, J., took no part.