Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Nala vs. Baroso 2003

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    8 views2 pages
    The petitioner challenged the validity of a search warrant that led to the seizure of firearms from his home. The issue was whether there was probable cause to issue the search warrant. The court ruled that probable cause was not established. Specifically, the affidavit and witnesses did not mention that the petitioner lacked a license to possess firearms, which is a necessary element of the offense of illegal possession. While an officer testified to his belief that the firearms were unlicensed, this was a personal belief without verification from the appropriate agency. The best evidence of lacking a license, a certification from the agency, was not presented.

    Original Description:

    Consti digest

    Original Title

    389. NALA VS. BAROSO 2003

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner challenged the validity of a search warrant that led to the seizure of firearms from his home. The issue was whether there was probable cause to issue the search warrant. The court ruled that probable cause was not established. Specifically, the affidavit and witnesses did not mention that the petitioner lacked a license to possess firearms, which is a necessary element of the offense of illegal possession. While an officer testified to his belief that the firearms were unlicensed, this was a personal belief without verification from the appropriate agency. The best evidence of lacking a license, a certification from the agency, was not presented.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    8 views2 pages

    Nala vs. Baroso 2003

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    The petitioner challenged the validity of a search warrant that led to the seizure of firearms from his home. The issue was whether there was probable cause to issue the search warrant. The court ruled that probable cause was not established. Specifically, the affidavit and witnesses did not mention that the petitioner lacked a license to possess firearms, which is a necessary element of the offense of illegal possession. While an officer testified to his belief that the firearms were unlicensed, this was a personal belief without verification from the appropriate agency. The best evidence of lacking a license, a certification from the agency, was not presented.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    389. Nala vs. Barroso Jr.

    408 SCRA 529 (2003)

    FACTS: By virtue of a search warrant obtained based on the information that the
    petitioner allegedly has illegal possession of firearm, the PNP searched
    petitioner’s house and from there seized firearms and ammunitions. In response
    petitioner filed a motion to quash the said warrant, however respondent Judge
    upheld the validity of the search warrant. The petitioner filed for MR but was
    again denied. Hence, he filed a petition alleging that the respondent judge
    committed grave abuse of discretion for upholding the validity of the search
    warrant. Among others, the petitioner argued that there was no probable cause
    behind the issuance of the warrant.

    ISSUE: WON there was probable cause in issuing the search warrant.

    RULING: No. The “probable cause” for a valid search warrant has been defined
    as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
    prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that objects
    sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.
    This probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the
    complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay.
    In determining its existence, the examining magistrate must make a probing and
    exhaustive, not merely routine or pro forma examination of the applicant and the
    witnesses. Probable cause must be shown by the best evidence that could be
    obtained under the circumstances. On the part of the applicant and witnesses,
    the introduction of such evidence is necessary especially where the issue is the
    existence of a negative ingredient of the offense charged, e.g., the absence of a
    license required by law. On the other hand, the judge must not simply rehash
    the contents of the affidavits but must make his own extensive inquiry on the
    existence of such license, as well as on whether the applicant and the witnesses
    have personal knowledge thereof.

    In the case at bar, the search and seizure warrant was issued in connection with
    the offense of illegal possession of firearms, the elements of which are—(1) the
    existence of the subject firearm; and (2) the fact that the accused who owned or
    possessed it does not have the license or permit to possess the same.26
    Probable cause as applied to illegal possession of firearms would therefore be
    such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
    prudent man to believe that a person is in possession of a firearm and that he
    does not have the license or permit to possess the same. Nowhere, however, in
    the affidavit and testimony of witness Ruel Nalagon nor in PO3 Macrino L.
    Alcoser’s application for the issuance of a search warrant was it mentioned that
    petitioner had no license to possess a firearm.

    While Alcoser testified before the respondent judge that the firearms in the
    possession of petitioner are not licensed, this does not qualify as “personal
    knowledge” but only “personal belief” because neither he nor Nalagon verified,
    much more secured, a certification from the appropriate government agency that
    petitioner was not licensed to possess a firearm. This could have been the best
    evidence obtainable to prove that petitioner had no license to possess firearms
    and ammunitions, but the police officers failed to present the same.

    You might also like