Kho v. Makalintal (1999)

Kho v. Makalintal (1999)

Topic: Validity of Search Warrant

PARTIES:

·      Petitioner: Benjamin Kho, Elizabeth Alindogan

·      Respondent: Hon. Roberto Makalintal, NBI

FACTS:

·      May 15, 1990 – NBI Agent Salvador applied for a search warrant against Benjamin Kho in his residence at BF Homes, Paranaque. On the same day NBI Agent Arugay also applied to the same court for a warrant against the Kho for in his house at Brgy. Moonwalk, Paranaque.

·      The warrants were applied for after NBI trams had conducted personal surveillance and investigation in the two houses based on the confidential information they received that the places were being used as storage centers for unlicensed firearms and “chop-chop” vehicles.

·      NBI sought the issuance of the warrants in anticipation of criminal cases to be filed against Kho.

·      On the same day, the Judge Makalintal conducted the necessary examination of the applicants and their witnesses, after which he issued the warrant.

·      May 16, 1990 – Armed with the search warrant, the NBI agents searched the subject premises and recovered various high-powered firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, explosives, and various radio and telecommunication equipment. (In both houses)

·      The items were confiscated. Upon verification with the Firearms and Explosives Unit, the NBI agents found out that no license has ever been issued to any person/entity for the confiscated items.

·      May 22, 1990 – NBI submitted separate returns to Judge Makalintal requesting that the items seized be in the continued custody of the NBI.

·      May 28, 1990 – Petitioners presented a Motion to Quash the said warrants; Judge Makalintal dismissed their petition.

ISSUES/HOLDING:

1.     W/N the subject search warrants were issued without probable cause.

·       NO. Petitioners argue that the surveillance and investigation conducted by the NBI within the premises were not sufficient to vest in the applicant’s personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances showing or indicating the commission of the crime.

·       But the records show that the NBI agents who conducted the surveillance and investigation testified unequivocally that they saw guns being carried to and unloaded in the two houses.

·       Applicant Salvador and Agent Vargas testified that they personally attended the surveillance together with their witnesses and saw the firearms being unloaded from motor vehicles and brought into the houses.

·       It is therefore decisively clear that the application for the questioned search warrants was based on the personal knowledge of the applicants and their witnesses.

·       Furthermore, Judge Makalintal, examined the applicants and their witnesses to assess their testimonies and to find out their personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances enough to create a probable cause.

·       Judge Makalintal was the one who personally examined the applicants and witnesses who asked searching questions vis-à-vis the applications for search warrants.

·       The Judge was able to observe and determine whether the subject applicants and their witnesses gave accurate accounts of the surveillance and investigation.

2.     W/N the subject search warrants are prohibited under the Constitution for being ‘general warrants’

·       NO. Petitioners claim that subject search warrants are general warrants proscribed by the Constitution; that the things to be seized were not described and detailed out.

·       But the records on hand indicate that the search warrants under scrutiny specifically describe the items to be seized.

·       The use of the phrase “and the like” is of no moment and does not make the search warrants in general warrants.

·       The said warrants comply with the Constitutional and statutory requirements. The law does not require that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities, otherwise, it would be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of things are looking for.

·       In this case, the NBI agents could not have been in the position to know beforehand the exact caliber or make of the firearms to be seized.

·       Verily, the failure to specify detailed descriptions in the warrants did not render the same general.

3.     W/N the said warrants were issued in violation of the procedural requirements set forth in the Constitution and the Rules of Court

·       NO. Nothing improper is perceived in the manner the respondent Judge conducted the examination of the applicants and their witnesses.

·       The Judge personally examined them under oath and asked them searching questions on the facts and circumstances personally known to them, in compliance with prescribed procedure and legal requirements.

·       The sworn statements and affidavits submitted by the witnesses were duly attached to the pertinent records of the proceedings.

·       It was within the discretion of the examining judge to determine what questions to ask the witnesses so long as the examinations asked are germane to the pivot of inquiry – the existence or absence of a probable cause.

JUDGMENT:

·      Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

DOCTRINE:

·      “General warrants” – “a description of the property to be seized need not be technically accurate nor necessarily precise; and its nature will necessarily vary according to whether the identity of the property, or its character, is the matter of concern. Further, the description is required to be specific only so far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow.” (Justice Ricardo Francisco)

·      People v. Rubio – “But where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, it is not required that a technical description be given, for this could mean that no warrant could issue.”