Nolasco v. Pano

Nolasco v.
Pano General as belonging to Communist party Cynthia Nolasco and Mila Aguila-Roque were
arrested on board a public vehicle as they were tagged as being members of CPP-NPA at 11:30 am . The
search on Aguilar-Roques house was at 12 noon. The distance was quite far. This previous decision notes
that a warrantless search is limited only to the person of the suspect and the place of arrest, not to any other
place.
Earlier that day, Judge Cruz Pao issued a search warrant to be served at Aguilar-Roques leased residence
allegedly an underground house of the CPP/NPA. On the basis of the documents seized, charges of
subversion and rebellion by the CSG were filed by but the fiscals office merely charged her and Nolasco with
illegal possession of subversive materials. Aguilar-Roque asked for suppression of the evidence on the ground
that it was illegally obtained and that the search warrant is void because it is a general warrant since it does
not sufficiently describe with particularity the things subject of the search and seizure, and that probable cause
has not been properly established for lack of searching questions propounded to the applicants witness.
The petitioners1 and public respondents2 filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration (MPR) on the Courts
previous decision on October 8, 1985.
the Court ruled that 1) Search Warrant No. 80-84 issued by

respondent Executive Judge Pao was annulled and set aside , 2) the Temporary
On the October 8, 1985 decision,
Restraining Order, stopping the respondent from introducing evidence obtained pursuant to the
search warrant in Subversive Document Case, 3) the personalities seized may be retained by the
Constabulary Security Group for possible introduction as evidence in Criminal Case No. SMC11, pending
before Special Military Commission No. 1, without prejudice to Mila AguilarRoque objecting to their relevance
and asking said Commission to return to her any and all irrelevant documents and articles.
In the MPR of the public respondents, they maintain that the search warrant is valid. It should be
considered in the context of rebellion because the documents cannot be pinpointed because the
offense is not an isolated act or transaction.
In the MPR of the petitioners, they stated one of the grounds where a warrantless search can only be justified
is if it was incident to a lawful arrest. In so far as petitioner Mila Aguilar-Roque is concerned, the petitioners
submit that she was not lawfully arrested. Thus, the search without a warrant could not be valid because
it was not in pursuit of a lawful arrest which is one of the exceptions for the need for a valid search
warrant.
There was a change in administration and the Court3 had ordered both the petitioners and respondent to
resubmit their positions pursuant to Section 18 of Rule 3 which requires the successor official to state whether
or not he maintains the action and position taken by his predecessorinoffice.
In compliance, the petitioners maintain that the search was illegal and it should be returned to the owner. The
NEW Solicitor General offered no further objection to the declaration that the subject search is illegal and the
seized items must be returned to the petitioners. The Solicitor General states that all the articles thus seized
fall under the exclusionary rule totally and unqualifiedly and cannot be used against any of the three
petitioners.
Whether the pieces of evidence which was acquired from a warrantless search not falling under the exceptions can
be used as evidence?
No. Based on the respective positions taken by the parties, the Court ruled that the MPR of the
petitioner in the Courts Decision of October 8, 1985 is granted.
The questioned search warrant has correctly been declared null and void in the Courts decision as a
general warrant issued in gross violation of the constitutional mandate that the right of the people to be
secure on their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated (Bill of Rights, sec. 3). The Bill of Rights orders
the absolute exclusion of all illegally obtained evidence: Any evidence obtained in violation of this . . .
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding (Sec. 4[21). This constitutional mandate
expressly adopting the exclusionary rule has proved by historical experience to be the only practical means
Cynthia D. Nolasco, Mila Aguilar-Roque, Willie C. Tolentino

Hon. Erani Cruz Pao, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Hon. Antonio P Santos, Presiding
Judge, Branch XLII, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City Hon. Sergio F. Apostol, City Fiscal, Quezon City
Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, Lt. General Fidel Ramos and Col. Jesus Altuna
3
A change from Marcos to Cory administration
2
of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures by outlawing all
evidence illegally seized and thereby removing the incentive on the part of state and police officers to
disregard such basic rights. What the plain language of the Constitution mandates is beyond the power of
the courts to change or modify.
It is at once evident that the foregoing Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal properties
vaguely described and not particularized. It is an all- embracing description which includes
everything conceivable regarding the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National
Democratic Front. It does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are; what
the manuals not otherwise available to the public contain to make them subversive or to
enable them to be used for the crime of rebellion. There is absent a definite guideline to the
searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the law
discretion regarding what articles they should seize as, in fact, taken also were a portable
typewriter and 2 wooden boxes.
The dispositive portion now reads as 1) Search Warrant No. 80-84 issued by respondent Executive Judge
Pao was annulled and set aside, 2) the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), stopping the respondent from
introducing evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant in Subversive Document Case, is made
permanent, 3) the personalities seized by virtue of the illegal search warrant are hereby ordered returned.
Note:
o
The opinion of Teehankee states that the questioned search warrant is void for being a general
warrant. And anything obtained from a void warrant is not admissible as evidence, therefore the
court changes the dispositive portion of the petition and that the documents be returned to
petitioners and cannot be used as evidence against them.

Nolasco v. Pano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nolasco v. Pano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nolasco v.

the Court ruled that 1) Search Warrant No. 80-84 issued by

Cynthia D. Nolasco, Mila Aguilar-Roque, Willie C. Tolentino

You might also like