23/06/2022
A warrant that justifies the intrusion, to be valid, must satisfy the following requirements:
(1) it must be issued upon“probable cause;”
(2) probable cause must be determined personally by the judge;
(3) such judge must examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; and
(4) the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
There is [no need] to examine both the applicant and the witness/es if either one of them is [sufficient] to establish probable cause.
As early as 1937, in the case of Alvarez v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, the Court explained:
"[U]ltimately, the purpose of the proceeding is for the judge to determine that probable cause exists. Thus, there is [no need] to examine both the applicant and the witness/es [if] either one of them is [sufficient] to establish probable cause."
"Again, the purpose of the examination is to satisfy the judge that probable cause exists. Hence, it is [immaterial] in the grander scheme of things whether the judge examined the complainant only, or the witness only, and not both the complainant and the witness/es.
The primordial consideration here is that the judge is convinced that there is probable cause to disturb the particular individual’s privacy[.]"
In addition, it would be a fruitless exercise to insist that the judge should have examined the complainant as well when, as here, (G.R. No. 248395) he (the complainant), admittedly did not have personal knowledge of the circumstances that constitute the probable cause.
Based on the affidavit submitted, it was Police Officer 1 Rodolfo M. Geverola (PO1 Geverola) and his “Action Agent” who had personal knowledge of the circumstances as they were the ones who conducted the surveillance and test buy. Even if, for instance, Judge Balagot examined the complainant, Police Superintendent Leo Tayabas Ajero (P/Supt Ajero), he would have obtained [nothing] from the latter because of his lack of personal knowledge.
P/Supt Ajero was the complainant [only because] he was the Officer-in-Charge of the Kidapawan City Police Station, but it was never alleged that he participated in any of the prior surveillance conducted.
[PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
ROBERTO REY E. GABIOSA, SR.
G.R. No. 248395. January 29, 2020.]
⚖️👨⚖️ 𝗖𝗔𝗚𝗨𝗜𝗢𝗔, 𝗝
Read more:
https://pslk.net/lgct37jx
©️📸:Dreamstime .com
