The Court of Appeals (CA) has voided two search warrants issued by the Quezon City regional trial court (RTC) that led to the seizure of firearms, ammunition and explosives allegedly in possession of three human rights activists who were arrested in Manila in 2019 and charged criminally in court.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito, the CA also reversed the ruling of the Manila RTC, where the cases were filed, which denied the plea of activists Ram Carlo Bautista, Alma Moran, and Reina Mae Nasino to suppress the illegally seized evidence and to nullify the search warrants.
Bautista, Moran and Nasino were arrested on Nov. 5, 2019 in Tondo, Manila on the basis of search warrants issued by Judge Cecilyn Burgos-Villavert of Quezon City RTC.
Seized in their alleged possession were one hand grenade, a .45 caliber pistol and magazine with live ammunition, a Bushmaster M16 5.56 mm rifle with magazine and live ammunition and several other alleged illegal items.
Criminal cases were filed against them before the Manila RTC for violations of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 9516 (An Act Further Amending the Provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, entitled ‘Codifying The Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing In, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof...) and R.A. 10591 (An Act Providing For A Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunition and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof).
They pleaded to nullify the search warrants and to suppress the use of alleged evidence reportedly seized in their possession.
They told the trial court, among other things, that search was illegal because it was done at an address different from that stated in the warrant; that the evidence seized during the search are inadmissible because they “fruits of a poisonous tree;” the warrants were invalid for lack of specificity of the place to the search and the items subject of the search; and the search was invalid because it was not conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant or done in the presence of two witnesses.
When their plea to quash the search warrants and to suppress the evidence seized during the implementation of the warrants were denied by Manila RTC Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umali, they filed a petition with the CA.
At the time of her arrest, Nasino was pregnant. In detention, she delivered a baby girl on July 1, 2020 at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Manila City RTC denied Nasino’s petition to be with her newly-born child either at the hospital of inside her jail dormitory to be able to breastfeed her.
Nasino elevated the issue before the CA which dismissed her petition on account of mootness since the baby had died and had been buried.
On the criminal charges as a result of the two search warrants, the three activists denied the charges against them and pointed out they were arrested without a warrant of arrest.
They told the CA that the firearms, ammunition and explosives do not belong to them and were just planted by the raiding team.
In granting their petition, nullifying the search warrants, and suppressing the use as evidence of the items seized during the search, the CA said:
“The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is one of the fundamental constitutional rights that remains constant despite the everchanging Constitution of our country, from the 1899 Malolos Constitution to the present 1987 Constitution.
“The protection afforded by the right was further reinforced by its recognition as a basic human right under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to both of which the Philippines has given its imprimatur.
“Both the Convention and the Declaration recognize a person’s right against arbitrary or unlawful interference with one’s privacy and property.
“Courts are therefore expected to be vigilant in preventing its stealthy encroachment or gradual depreciation and ensure that the safeguards put in place for its protection are observed. We do so today.
“A search under the strength of a warrant is required to be witnessed by the lawful occupant of the premises sought to be searched. It must be stressed that it is only upon their absence that their presence may be replaced by two (2) persons of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
“In the present case, petitioners were actually present in the place but what is disconcerting is that petitioner Bautista was required to leave the room while the search was being conducted. It was only later on that he was called and the items seized were shown to him. This is irregular.
“Thus, the argument of respondent People that the subject Search Warrants specifically identified petitioner Bautista’s house does not hold water. To the point of being repetitive, the subject Search Warrants indicated the wrong address and with the wrong description, which resulted to the improper implementation thereof.
“The implementation of the subject Search Warrants is further marred by irregularities committed by the officers in the actual conduct of the search. Notably, the search in petitioner Bautista’s room was not made in his presence, as he was brought downstairs. It was only when he was brought back to his room, this time in the presence of the barangay officials, that the seized items were shown to him. Not having seen the actual search conducted on his room, he wrote ‘UP’ when he signed the two (2) Certification of Orderly Search, indicating he was signing them ‘Under Protest.’
“Meanwhile, on the part of petitioners Moran and Nasino, they were hand-tied and made to lie face down during the search conducted in their rooms.
“It should be stressed that the subject Search Warrants were addressed to petitioner Bautista only. Notwithstanding so, petitioners Moran and Nasino were likewise subjected to the search and several items, which were not in plain view, were allegedly confiscated from them.
“Clearly, petitioners’ right against unreasonable search and seizures was blatantly trampled upon.
“Another fact worth mentioning is that while the address in the subject Search Warrants indicate Brgy. 183, the barangay officials who were present during the search were from Brgy. 178, thus further emphasizing the point that the address in the subject Search Warrants is erroneous.
“With the erroneous addresses that were never clarified, there isbut one logical conclusion, i.e., the applicant and his witnesses did not really have personal knowledge of the surrounding facts which would have justified the issuance of the subject Search Warrants. Consequently, the existence of probable cause is doubtful.
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisition, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Orders dated July 1, 2020 and July 22, 2020 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
“Search Warrants Nos. 5944 (19) and 5945 (19) are declared VOID for failure to meet the standards of a valid search warrant, and all evidence procured by virtue thereof are deemed inadmissible.SO ORDERED.”
Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta Jr. and Walter S. Ong concurred in the decision.