Antonio Abiang y Cabonce vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 265117, November 13, 2023)(CASE DIGEST)

Facts

Petitioner Antonio Abiang y Cabonce was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions under Republic Act No. 10591. The charge stemmed from the implementation of Search Warrant No. 033-17-FVV issued by Executive Judge Frazierwin V. Viterbo. Prior to the search, the Firearms and Explosives Office certified that Abiang was not a licensed/registered firearm holder. During the search of Abiang’s house, a .38 caliber revolver loaded with six live ammunitions and one live ammunition (reload) were found by police officers in a sling bag inside a black basin in the bedroom. Abiang was convicted by the Regional Trial Court, and the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Abiang subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing, among other points, that the Search Warrant was invalid for having been issued without probable cause.

Issues

1. Whether the Search Warrant issued against the petitioner was validly issued based on a finding of probable cause, consistent with the constitutional requirements.
2. Whether the objection to the legality of the Search Warrant was waived due to the petitioner’s failure to file a timely motion to quash before the trial court.

Ruling

The Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated October 29, 2021 and Resolution dated January 5, 2023 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 45029 are REVERSED. Petitioner Antonio Abiang y Cabonce is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 5305-G. His bail bond is cancelled. In case he posted a cash bond, the same should be RETURNED to him within five days from notice. SO ORDERED.

Essential Elements of Jurisprudence

1. Constitutional Requirement for Probable Cause in Search Warrants: A search warrant must be issued upon probable cause, which must be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses.
2. Invalidity Due to Lack of Record/Documentation: The absence of depositions, transcripts of stenographic notes, or other particular facts and circumstances in the records indicating that the issuing judge personally and thoroughly examined the applicant and witnesses is grounds to void the search warrant. The mere statement in the warrant that the requirements were met is insufficient.
3. Insufficiency of Non-Licensure Alone to Establish Probable Cause: While a certification showing the accused is not a licensed firearm holder is necessary for conviction, this evidence alone is insufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause for a search warrant, as it does not prove that the accused is in actual possession of any firearm or ammunition.
4. Supremacy of Constitutional Rights Over Procedural Rules (Waiver): The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures (Article III, Section 2) is supreme over mere technical rules of procedure. The failure of an accused to timely object to the validity of a search warrant does not cure the warrant’s inherent defect if it was issued in disregard of constitutional requirements. The requirement to raise objections during trial is a procedural rule established by jurisprudence, and non-compliance cannot validate a constitutionally void warrant.
5. Exclusionary Rule: Any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding, pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 3(2) . Consequently, where the search warrant is void, the seized items (firearm and ammunitions) are inadmissible, leading to acquittal.

Sample Q&A

Question: Accused X was convicted of illegal possession of firearms after a police search, conducted pursuant to a warrant, yielded an unlicensed gun. On appeal, X argues the warrant was void because the case records contain neither depositions nor transcripts showing the issuing judge personally conducted a searching examination of the witnesses, though the warrant itself attested that the requirements were met. The prosecution argues that since X failed to file a motion to quash before entering his plea, he waived his right to question the warrant’s validity. Should the Supreme Court uphold X’s conviction?

Answer: No, the Supreme Court should acquit X. The search warrant is void for failure to comply with the constitutional requirements of Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses. The absence of any record, transcript, or particular facts in the case records indicating that the judge conducted the requisite searching questions is inconsistent with the regular performance of duties and invalidates the warrant. Furthermore, the procedural rule requiring a timely objection to a search warrant does not serve to validate a warrant issued in disregard of constitutional rights. The ends of justice are better served when the supremacy of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is preserved over technical rules of procedure. Since the warrant is void, the seized firearm and ammunitions are inadmissible evidence pursuant to the Exclusionary Rule (Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution). Without admissible evidence, a verdict of conviction cannot stand, and acquittal is necessary.

---

#AbiangVsPeople #GRNo265117 #ProbableCause #SearchWarrant #ConstitutionalRights #UnreasonableSearchAndSeizure #ExclusionaryRule #FruitOfThePoisonousTree #RA10591 #BillOfRights #PhilippineLaw #PhilippineSupremeCourt #Jurisprudence #CaseDigest #NewCaseDigest #CriminalLawPH #ConstitutionalLawPH #RemedialLawPH #LawStudentsPH #FilipinoLawyer #LegalPH #KnowYourRights #LegalUpdate #LegalInsights #BarExamPH #BarReview #LawSchool #LawyerLife #PhilippineJustice #JusticePH #Atty