CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

CASE 6 SET A

PAGE 7, 1-a

QUINTERO, vs.NBI, HON. ELIAS ASUNCION, Judge of CFI of Manila, and HON. JOSE FLAMINIANO, City Fiscal of Pasay City, G.R. no. L-35149 June 23, 1988 FACTS: On 19 May 1972, petitioner Eduardo Quintero, a delegate of the first district of Leyte to the 1971 Constitutional Convention delivered a privilege speech at a plenary session of the Con-Con. In his speech, Delegate Quintero disclosed that certain persons had distributed money to some delegates of the Con-Con to influence the delegates in the discharge of their functions. As an offshoot of this disclosure, Delegate Quintero delivered to the Con-Con the aggregate amount of the "payola" he himself had received the amount of P11, 150.00 in cash. Quintero, however, did not reveal the names of the persons who gave him the money; and he begged at that time not to be made to name names. However, pressure mounted on Delegate Quintero to reveal the Identities of the people behind the "payola" scheme. Hence, on 30 May 1972, Quintero released from his hospital bed in San Juan de Dios Hospital a sworn statement addressed to the Committee on Privileges of the Con-Con, mentioning the names of the persons who gave him the "payola." Also, In his privilege speech, he said that "in that same evening of January 6,1972, after the dinner was over, when we were still inside the Malacaang grounds on our way to our cars, one of the delegates made this announcement: "The envelopes are ready. They will be distributed in a couple of days." He revealed the identity of the announcer. It was Delegate Casimiro Madarang of Cebu. In his statement, he revealed the amounts given, and from whom it came from:
Amount No. 1. P500.00 handed by Delegate Gabriel Yniquez - from the First Lady. Amount No. 2. P500.00 from the office of Representative Nicanor Yniquez Amount No. 3. P500.00 from Mrs. Paz Mate (wife of Congressman Mate of Leyte)same amount of money by the First Lady. Amount No. 4. P500.00 from Delegate Domingo Veloso Amount No. 5. P500.00 handed to me by Delegate Jaime Opinion. Other envelopes were also given to other Samar-Leyte delegates. Amount No 6 P500.00 handed to me by Delegate Domingo Veloso. it came "from the same source." Amount No. 7. P2,000.00 handed by Delegate Ramon Salazar, in the residence of Delegate Augusta Syjuco. Delegate Salazar told him that since he was not in that meeting, the money was being sent to him.. Amount No. 8. P200.00 handed by Delegate Domingo Veloso during a party given by President and Mrs. Diosdado Macapagal. the money came from Delegate Augusta Syjuco. Amount No. 9. P500.00 handed by Delegate Federico dela Plana 10. Amount No. 10. P500.00 left inside my drawer in the Convention Hall by Delegate Constantino Navarro, Jr. He said it came from Delegate Venancio Yaneza. Amount No. 11. P500.00 placed on my desk under a piece of paper, by Delegate Constantino Navarro, Jr. He said it came from Delegate Venancio Yaneza. Amount No. 12. P450.00 handed by Delegate Domingo Veloso . He said it came "from Imelda." Amount No. 13. P500.00 handed by Delegate Domingo Veloso. He said it came "from the First Lady." Amount No. 14. P500.00 handed by Delegate Domingo Veloso Amount No. 15. P500.00 handed by Delegate Gabriel Yniquez Amount No. 16. P1,000.00 handed by Delegate Gabriel Yniquez. He said, "This is for the months of December and January. Amount No. 17. P500.00 handed by Delegate Flor Sagadal. envelope was covered by a piece of paper which Delegate Sagadal placed on my desk. Amount No. 18. P1,000.00 handed by Delegate Damian Aldaba. it came from Delegate Gabriel Yniquez.

Hours after Delegate Quintero's statement was made public, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos went on the air as well as on TV to denounce Mr. Quintero, and Mr. Marcos averred that he "shall not rest until I have unmasked this pretender, his master-minds and accomplices." In the evening of the same day that Mr. Marcos issued the afore-quoted statement, the agents of the respondent National Bureau of Investigation (NBI, for short) raided the house of Delegate Quintero, on the basis of Search Warrant No. 7 issued also on 31 May 1972 by respondent Judge Elias Asuncion of the Court of First Instance of Manila. NBI agents seized bundles of money amounting to P379, 000.00. On 1 June 1972, the NBI filed with the City Fiscal of Pasay a criminal complaint for direct bribery against Delegate Quintero. On 6 June 1972, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the use in any proceeding of the objects seized by the respondent NBI from the Quintero residence. Hence, this petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction, with preliminary injunction, Quintero seeks to annul and declare as void and without legal effect Search Warrant No. 7, issued by respondent Judge Elias Asuncion of the CFI of Manila. RULING: SC finds the questioned search warrant issued by judge Asuncion null and void for being violative of the Constitution and the Rules of Court. The circumstances prevailing before the issuance of the questioned search warrant, and the actual manner in which the search was conducted in the house of the petitioner, was an orchestrated movement designed for just one purpose to destroy petitioner Quintero's public image with "incriminating evidence," and, as a corollary to this, that the evidence allegedly seized from his residence was "planted" by the very raiding party that was commanded to "seize" such evidence. The interrogations conducted by the Judge Asuncion, upon the applicant NBI agent Samuel Castro, showed that the latter knew nothing, of his own personal knowledge, to show that Mr. Quintero had committed any offense. And so was the statement by Congressman Artemio Mate. It lacked the directness and definiteness. Search warrants are not issued on loose, vague or doubtful basis of fact, nor on mere suspicion or belief. Another circumstance which points to the nullity of the questioned search warrant for having been issued without probable cause, is the fact that the search warrant delivered to the occupant of the searched

premises, Generoso Quintero (nephew) was issued in connection with the offense of " grave threats" and not "direct bribery," The offense charged had no relation at all to the evidence, There was no ground whatsoever for the respondent judge to claim that facts and circumstances had been established, because what was ordered to be seized in the search warrant he issued, no relation at all can be established between the crime supposedly committed (grave threats). Another irregularity committed by the agents of respondent NBI was their failure to comply with the requirement of Sec. 10, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which provides that "The officer seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the person on whom or in whose possession it was found, or in the absence of any person, must, in the presence of at least one-witness, leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property." The receipt issued by the seizing party was signed by a witness, Sgt. Ignacio Veracruz. He was a policeman from the Manila Metropolitan Police (MMP), who accompanied the agents of respondent NBI during the conduct of the search, The requirement under Rule 126 that a witness should attest to the making of the receipt, was not complied with. This requirement of the Rules was rendered nugatory, when the one who attested to the receipt from the raiding party was himself a member of the raiding party. DECISION: Search warrant declared null and void and the TRO issued by this Court on 6 June 1972 was hereby made PERMANENT the amount of P379,200.00 seized from the house of petitioner Quintero in the possession of the Central Bank. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 CASE 6 SET B PAGE 7, 1-b

Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force v. CA, 171 SCRA 348, G.R. no. 83578 (1989) FACTS: The P.A.S.T.F. was created by virtue of PD 1936 to serve as the Presidents arm called upon to combat the vice of dollar salting or the black marketing and salting of foreign exchange. State Prosecutor Jose B. Rosales, who is assigned with the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force hereinafter referred to as PADS Task Force for purposes of convenience, issued search warrants against the petitioners Karamfil Import-Export Co., Inc., P & B Enterprises Co., Inc., Philippine Veterans Corporation, Philippine Veterans Development Corporation, Philippine Construction Development Corporation, Philippine Lauan Industries Corporation, Inter-trade Development (Alvin Aquino), Amelili U. Malaquiok Enterprises and Jaime P. Lucman Enterprises. On April 16, 1985, the lower court declared Search Warrant Nos. 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, and 161 null and void, and the respondents were ordered to return and surrender immediately all the personal properties and documents seized by them from the petitioners from the aforementioned search warrants. The,, the trial court denied reconsideration. April 4, 1986, the P.A.S.T.F went to the respondent Court of Appeals to contest, on certiorari, the 2 orders of the lower court. The CA ruled in favor of PASTF, saying that since it exercises a quasi-judicial power, it is in line with the RTC, and so therefore they can issue search warrants. But, on November 12, 1986, Karamfil Import-Export Co., Inc. sought a reconsideration, questioning if the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force is included in the phrase "such other responsible officer' countenanced by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants of search and seizure. The Court of Appeals, on Karamfil's motion, reversed itself and issued a Resolution on September 1987, and subsequently, in its Resolution on May 20, 1988, denied the petitioner's (PASTF) motion for reconsideration. Hence, this appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not the PASTF is "such other officer as may be authorized by law" to issue warrants under the 1973 Constitution. RULING: NO. The Court, in reviewing the powers of the PASTF under its enabling law, sees nothing that will reveal a legislative intendment to confer upon the body, quasi-judicial responsibilities relative to offenses punishable by PD 1883. Its undertaking is simply to determine w/n probable cause exists to warrant the filing of charges with the proper court, meaning to say, to conduct an inquiry preliminary to a judicial recourse, and to recommend action of appropriate authorities. The Court agrees that PASTF exercises, or was meant to exercise, prosecutorial powers, and on that ground, it cannot be said to be a neutral and detached judge to determine the existence of probable cause for purposes of arrest or search. Unlike a magistrate, a prosecutor is naturally interested in the success of his case. Although his office "is to see to it that justice if done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the accused," he stands invariably, as the adversary of the accused and his accuser. To permit him to issue the warrants and indeed, warrants of arrest, is to make him both judge and jury in his own right, when he is neither. This makes to our mind and to that extent, PD 1636 as amended by PD 2002, unconstitutional. The "responsible officer" referred to under the Constitution is one not only possessing the necessary skills and competence but more significantly, the neutrality and independence comparable to the impartiality presumed of a judicial officer.