A Quezon City regional trial court (RTC) has dismissed the charges of illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives against one of the unionists who were arrested by the police during various operations conducted on International Human Rights Day on Dec. 10, 2020.
In an 11-page order, Judge Jose G. Pineda of Branch 220 granted the motion of accused unionist Dennise A. Velasco to quash the search warrant issued against him and suppress the evidence that was taken during his arrest at his residence in Quezon City.
Judge Pineda said in his order:
“Considering that the search and seizure warrant in this case was procured in violation of the Constitution and the Rules of Court, all items seized in accused’s house, being ‘fruits of the poisonous tree,’ are inadmissible for any purpose in proceeding.
“Hence, the complaints filed against accused Velasco for illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives based on illegally obtained evidence have no more leg to stand on.”
With his ruling, Judge Pineda dismissed the charges against Velasco for allegedly violating Republic Act No. 10591, the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunitions Regulations Act, and Presidential Decree No. 1866, a codification of laws on illegal/unlawful possession, manufacture, dealing, acquisition or disposition of firearms, ammunition or explosives.
Pineda also ordered the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) to release Velasco from his detention cell at the Metro Manila District Jail Annex 4 Male Dormitory located in Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig City “unless he is being held for some other unlawful cause/s.”
Velasco was among seven persons who were arrested on Dec. 10, 2020 by the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) using search warrants issued by Quezon City Executive Judge Cecilyn Burgos-Villavert.
The PNP-CIDG claimed that seized from Velasco’s house were a rifle, pistols, and ammunition during the service of a search warrant.
Judge Pineda said: “The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted.”
“At any rate, regardless of the nature of the surveillance and verification of the information carried out by the police officers, the fact remains that both applicant and his witnesses did not have personal knowledge of accused’s lack of license to possess firearms, ammunitions, and explosives; and evidence presented before the court are insufficient to prove the existence of probable cause. Hence, the search and seizure warrant issued on the evidence presented is void,” the judge pointed out.
He also said: “It is elemental that in order to be valid, a search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of description of the things to be seized is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. Accused Velasco contends that the articles allegedly confiscated from his house are inadmissible as evidence against him because they were not the same items listed in the warrant.”
“Here, the lack of particularity in the description of the electronic devices allowed the raiding team to exercise unbridled discretion to confiscate virtually all evidence that they believe matched the items listed in the assailed search warrants. Needless to state, this is unlawful. It is axiomatic that law enforcers are permitted to seize only such objects that they are commanded to seize under a search warrant,” the judge said.