Skip to main content

Case Digest: Burgos v. Chief of Staff

 

Burgos v. Chief of Staff

Facts:

1.      Metropolitan Mail; We Forum; Jose Burgos, Jr. (publisher-editor of We Forum); Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano, executive judge of the Court of First Instance, Q.C.; Col. Rolando Abadilla, warrant petitioner (who)

2.      The two search warrants were issued on December 7, 1982 (when)

3.      No. 19, Road 3, Project 6, Q.C. (where) 784 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Ave. Q.C. (where)

4.      Office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles, articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of, numerous papers, documents, books, other written literature (what were seized). There were subversive documents from the publications - direct act of treason (why)

5.      Aside from the We Forum documents and equipment and subversive documents said to be promoting the objectives of subversive organizations, the general warrant also described motor vehicles sought to be seized: 

            Toyota Corolla - yellow

            Datsun - pick-up, white

            Delivery truck

            Toyota Tamaraw - white

            Toyota hi-lux - pick-up truck “Bagong Silang” marking

 

Issue: Whether or not there is a probable cause for the issuance of the warrant

 

Held: No

 

Decisions/ruling: The two search warrants are null and void, and accordingly set aside.  The prayer (request) for the return of the seized articles is hereby granted and all seized are ordered released at no costs.

 

Principles/grounds: Validity of search warrants (ON WHAT GROUNDS)

Sec. 3, Art. 4 of the 1973 Constitution                                 

 

Ruling: The two search warrants nos. 20-82 (a) and 20-82 (b) issued on December 7, 1982 are null and void and accordingly set aside.

The prayer (request) for the return of the seized articles is hereby granted and all seized are ordered released at no costs.

 

Respondents’ arguments:

  1. Urge the dismissal on grounds of latches (delay). They sought relief on July 16, 1983 (lapsed more than six months after premises’ raid)

 

Petitioners’ arguments:

  1. What caused the delay was because they tried to exhaust other remedies.
  2. “Waited in vain” for five months

 

Reasons by petitioners to nullify search warrants:

  1. Fault respondent judge for failing to conduct examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses - Constitutional provision Sec. 4, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court
  2. Petitioners conceded during the hearing on Aug. 9, 1983; exam. conducted by Col. Abadilla and witnesses
  3. The two search warrants were used to search two distinct places supposedly.
  4. The search warrants were directed against Burgos Jr., alone, but the articles of Jose Burgos Sr., Bayani Soriano and J. Burgos Media Services, Inc. were also taken.

 

 

In accordance with Sec. 3, Art. 4 of the 1973 Constitution; requisites for search warrant and arrest warrant are:

  1. Probable cause determined by judge or any person in authority; (there are facts or circumstances that the offense is committed and the subjects in connection with the offense is committed and the subjects in connection with the offense are in the place intended to be searched)

-          Specification: “mere generalization would not do”

-          Joint affidavit of Gutierrez and Tango is equally insufficient of probable cause

-          Objectionable: they are in the nature of general warrants

  1. Examination under oath/ affirmation by complainant and the witnesses he may produce;
  2. Describing the place to be searched / person or things to be seized

 

Aside from the We Forum documents and equipments and subversive documents said to be promoting the objectives of subversive organizations, the general warrant also described motor vehicles sought to be seized:  

Toyota Corolla - yellow

Datsun - pick-up, white

Delivery truck

Toyota Tamaraw - white

Toyota hi-lux - pick-up truck “Bagong Silang” marking

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. no. 168338 (February 15, 2008)

  Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. no. 168338 (February 15, 2008) Summary of rule of law. Any attempt to restrict press freedom and the right to free speech and free expression must be met with an examination so critical that only a danger that is clear and present would be allowed to curtail it. Facts. The case originates from events that occurred a year after the 2004 national and local elections . 1.       On 5 June 2005, an audiotape of a mobile phone conversation allegedly between the President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and a Comelec high-ranking official was released by Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye. It was audiotaped allegedly through wiretapping. 2.       Two versions of the tape were produced: one supposedly the complete version, and the other a spliced, “doctored” version, which would suggest that the President had instructed the Comelec official to manipulate the election results. 3.       On 7 June 2005, for...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Digest: Borjal vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126466)

  Borjal vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126466)   Primary Holding. Requisites for a libel suit: The victim should be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named ;   Not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as the person attacked or defamed - at least a third person could identify him to be the object of the libelous publication.   Facts. The conference, which according to private respondent, was estimated to cost around Php1, 815,000.00   would be funded through solicitations from various sponsors. On February 28, 1989, at the organizational meeting of the FNCLT, private respondent Francisco Wenceslao was elected Executive Director. As such, he wrote numerous solicitation letters to the business community for the support of the conference. Between May and July 1989, a series of articles written by petitioner Borjal was published on different dates in his co...
Post a Comment
Read more