48. Corro v. Lising Facts: Respondent Respondent RTC Judge Esteban Lising, upon application filed by Lt. Col. Berlin Castillo of the Philippine Constabulary Criminal Inestigation !erice, issued a search "arrant authori#ing the search and sei#ure of articles allegedly used by petitioner in committing the crime of inciting to sedition. 1. Printed copies of Philippine Times; 2. Manuscripts/drafts of articles for publication publication in the Philippine Philippine Times; Times; 3. Newspaper dummies of the Philippine Times; 4. Subersie documents! articles! printed matters! handbills! leaflets! banners; ". T#pewriters! duplicatin$ machines! mimeo$raphin$ and tape recordin$ machines! ideo machines and tapes Petitioner filed an urgent motion to recall "arrant and to return documents$personal properties alleging among others that the properties sei#ed are type"riters, duplicating machines, mimeographing and tape recording machines, ideo machines and tapes "hich are not in any "ay, inanimate or mute things as they are, connected "ith the offense of inciting to sedition. Respondent Respondent Judge Lising denied the motion. %ence, this petition praying that the search "arrant issued by respondent Judge Esteban &. Lising be declared null and oid ab initio that the padloc'ed office premises of the Philippine Times be reopened. Responde Respondents nts "ould "ould hae this Court dismiss the petition petition stating that probable probable cause e(ists )ustifying )ustifying the issuance of a search "arrant, the articles sei#ed "ere ade*uately described in the search "arrant, a search "as conducted I n an orderly manner and the padloc'ing of the searched premises "as "ith the consent of petitioner+s "ife. Ruling: !ection , -rticle I of the /01 Constitution proides2 !EC. . ...no search "arrant or "arrant of arrest issue e(cept upon probable cause to be determined by the )udge, or such other responsible officer as may be authori#ed by la", after e(amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the "itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei#ed.
and, !ection , Rule /34 of the 5e" Rules of Court, states that2 !EC. . %e&uisites for issuin$ search warrant. 6 - search "arrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection "ith one specific offense to be determined by the )udge or )ustice of the peace after e(amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the "itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei#ed. Probable cause may be defined as "such reasons, suorted by facts and circumstances, as !ill !arrant a cautious man in the belief that his actions, and the means taen in rosecuting it, are legally #ust and roer 7Burton s. !t. Paul, & 8 &. Ry. Co., &inn. /90, cited in :.!. s. -ddison, 39 Phil. ;44<.= -n application for search "arrant must state !ith articularly the alleged subversive materials ublished or intended to be ublished by the ublisher and editor of the Philiine $imes, Rommel Corro. -s >e hae stated in 'ur$os! Sr. s. (hief of Staff of the )rmed *orces of the Philippines , / !CR- 9??, =mere generali%ation !ill not suffice.= - search "arrant should articularly describe the lace to be searched and the things to be sei%ed. =The eident purpose and intent of this re*uirement is to limit the things to be sei#ed to those, and only those, particularly described in the search "arrant@ to leae the officers of the la" "ith no discretion regarding "hat articles they should sei#e, to the end that unreasonable searches and sei#ures may not be committed, 6 that abuses may not be committed.
The affidait of Col. Castillo states that in seeral issues of the Philippine Times2 ... "e found that the said publication in fact foments distrust and hatred against the goernment of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities, defined and penali#ed by -rticle /A3 of the Reised Penal Code as amended by Presidential ecree 5o. /9; 7p. 33, Rollo< and, the affidait of Lt. Ignacio reads, among others6 ... the said periodical published by Rommel Corro, contains articles tending to incite distrust and hatred for the Doernment of the Philippines or any of its duly constituted authorities. 7p. 3, Rollo< The aboe statements are mere conclusions of la! and !ill not satisfy the re&uirements of robable cause. $hey cannot serve as basis for the issuance of search !arrant, absent of the e'istence of robable cause.
In the case at bar, the search "arrant issued by respondent )udge allo"ed sei#ure of printed copies of the Philippine Times, manuscripts$drafts of articles for publication, ne"spaper dummies, subersie documents, articles, etc., and een type"riters, duplicating machines, mimeographing and tape recording machines. Thus, the language used is so all embracing as to include all conceivable records and e&uiment of etitioner regardless of !hether they are legal or illegal. $he search !arrant under consideration !as in the nature of a general !arrant !hich is constitutionally ob#ectionable. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-69899 July 15, 1985 ROMMEL CORRO, petitioner, vs. HON. ESTEBAN LISING Pr!"#"$% Ju#%, R%"o$&l Tr"&l Cour', (u)o$ C"'y, Br&$*+ C HON. REMIGIO ARI R%"o$&l Tr"&l Cour', (u)o$ C"'y, Br&$*+ 98/ CIT0 ISCAL2S O ICE, (u)o$ C"'y/ LT. COL. BERLIN A. CASTILLO &$# 1ST LT. GO3ORE3O M. IGNACIO, respondents, Reynaldo L. Bagatsing for petitioner. RELOA, J.: On September !, "!#$, respondent Re%ional &rial Court 'ud%e Esteban (isin% of )ue*on Cit+, upon application filed b+ (t. Col. Berlin Castillo of the Philippine Constabular+ Criminal nvesti%ation Service, issued Search -arrant No. )//// authori*in% the search and sei*ure of0 ". Printed copies of Philippine &imes1 . Manuscripts2drafts of articles for publication in the Philippine &imes1 $. Ne3spaper dummies of the Philippine &imes1 4. Subversive documents, articles, printed matters, handbills, leaflets, banners1 5. &+pe3riters, duplicatin% machines, mimeo%raphin% and tape recordin% machines, video machines and tapes
3hich have been used and are bein% used as instrument and means of committin% the crime of incitin% to sedition defined and p enali*ed under Article "4 of the Revised Penal Code, as a mended b+ P6 "#$5 ... 7p. 4, Rollo8 On November 9, "!#4, petitioner filed an ur%ent motion to recall 3arrant and to return documents2personal properties alle%in% amon% others that: . ... the properties sei*ed are t+pe3riters, duplicatin% machines, mimeo%raphin% and tape recordin% machines, video machines and tapes 3hich are not in an+ 3a+, inanimate or mute thin%s as the+ are, connected 3ith the offense of incitin% to sedition. $. More so, documents or papers sei*ed p urportin% to do the bod+ of the crime has been rendered moot and academic due to the findin%s of the A%rava Board that a militar+ conspirac+ 3as responsible for the sla+in% of the late Senator Beni%no A;uino,
illin% had virtuall+ affirmed b+ evidence testamentar+ and documentar+ the fact that soldiers >illed Beni%no A;uino, ed office premises of the Philippine &imes at 9"/ Me**anine loor, Fochen%co Buildin%, &.M., Gala3, Ermita, Manila.
n Our Resolution of ebruar+ "!, "!#5, respondents 3ere re;uired to file their comment. &he plea for temporar+ restrainin% order 3as %ranted and respondents Cit+ iscals Office of )ue*on Cit+, (t. Col. Berlin Castillo and "st (t. Fodofredo %nacio 3ere en'oined from introducin% as evidence for the state the documents2properties sei*ed under Search -arrant No. )//// in Criminal Ca%e No. ) !4$ 7Sedition case a%ainst petitioner8, pendin% before the Re%ional &rial Court of )ue*on Cit+, Branch !#, effective immediatel+ and continuin% until further orders from the Court. Respondents 3ould have this Court dismiss the petition on the %round that 7"8 the present action is premature because petitioner should have filed a motion for reconsideration of respondent in% of the searched premises 3as 3ith the consent of petitioners 3ife1 798 the findin%s of the A%rava Board is irrelevant to the issue of the validit+ of the search 3arrant1 78 press freedom is not an issue1 and, 7#8 the petition is b arred b+ laches. &here is merit in the petition. Respondents contend that petitioner should have filed a motion for reconsideration of the order in ;uestion before comin% to s. &his is not al3a+s so. -hen the ;uestions raised before the Supreme Court are the same as those 3hich 3ere s;uarel+ raised in and passed upon b+ the lo3er court, the filin% of the motion for reconsideration in said court before certiorari can be instituted in the Supreme Court is no lon%er a prere;uisite. As held in Bache H Co. 7Phil.8, nc. vs. Rui*, $ SCRA #$, 7t8he rule re;uirin% the filin% of a motion for reconsideration before an ap plication for a 3rit of certiorari can be entertained 3as never intended to be applied 3ithout considerin% the circumstances. &he rule does not appl+ 3here, the deprivation of petitioners fundamental ri%ht to due process taints the proceedin% a%ainst them in the court belo3 not onl+ 3ith irre%ularit+ but also 3ith nullit+.I (i>e3ise, in Pa'o, et al. vs. A%o, et al., "/# Phil. !/5 and in Fon*ales vs. Court of Appeals, $ SCRA 495, this Court ruled that Iit is onl+ 3he n ;uestions are raised for the first time before the hi%h court in a certiorari case that the 3rit shall not issue, unless the lo3er court had first been %iven an opportunit+ to pass upon the same.I urther, in the case of Matute vs. Court of Appeals , 9 SCRA 9#, -e held that I3hile as a matter of polic+ a motion for reconsideration in the lo3er court has often been considered a condition sine ;ua non for the %rantin% of a 3rit of certiorari, this rule does not appl+ 3here the proceedin% in 3hich the error occurred is a patent nullit+ or 3here the deprivation of petitioners fundamental ri%ht to due process ... taints the proceedin% a%ainst him in the court belo3 not onl+ 3ith irre%ularit+ but 3ith nullit+ 7(u*on Suret+ Co. v. Marbella et al., ("9/$#, Sept. $/, "!9/8, or 3hen special circumstances 3arrant immediate and more direct action. ...I &he records of this petition clearl+ disclose that the issues herein raised have alread+ been presented to and passed upon b+ the court a quo. Section $, Article @ of the "!$ Constitution provides: SEC. $. ...no search 3arrant or 3arrant of arrest issue e=cept upon probable cause to be determined b+ the 'ud%e, or such other responsible officer as ma+ be authori*ed b+ la3, after e=amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the 3itnesses he ma+ produce, and particularl+ describin% the place to be searched and the persons or thin%s to be sei*ed.
and, Section $, Rule "9 of the Ne3 Rules of Court, states that: SEC. $. Requisites for issuing search warrant. 0 A search 3arrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection 3ith one specific offense to be determined b+ the 'ud%e or 'ustice of the peace after e=amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the 3itnesses he ma+ prod uce, and particularl+ describin% the place to be searched and the persons or thin%s to be sei*ed. Probable cause ma+ be defined as Isuch reasons, supported b+ facts and circumstances, as 3ill 3arrant a cautious man in the belief that his actions, and the means ta>en in prosecutin% it, are le%all+ 'ust and proper 7Burton vs. St. Paul, M H M. R+. Co., $$ Minn. "#!, cited in .S. vs. Addison, # Phil. 5998.I &hus, an application for search 3arrant must state 3ith particularl+ the alle%ed subversive materials published or intended to be published b+ the publisher and editor of the Philippine &imes, Rommel Corro. As -e have stated in Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff of the Ared !orces of the "hilippines, "$$ SCRA #//, Imere %enerali*ation 3ill not suffice.I A search 3arrant should particularl+ describe the place to b e searched and the thin%s to be sei*ed. I&he evident purpose and intent of this re;uirement is to limit the thin%s to be sei*ed to those, and onl+ those, particularl+ described in the search 3arrant to leave the officers of the la3 3ith no d iscretion re%ardin% 3hat articles the+ should sei*e, to the end that unreasonable searches and sei*ures ma + not be committed, 0 that abuses ma+ not be committed Bache H Co. Phil. nc. vs, Rui*, supra8.I &he affidavit of Col. Castillo states that in several issues of the Philippine &imes: ... 3e found that the said publication in fact foments distrust and hatred a%ainst the %overnment of the Philippines and its dul+ constituted authorities, defined and penali*ed b+ Article "4 of the Revised Penal Code as amended b+ Presidential 6ecree No. "#$51 7p. , Rollo8 and, the affidavit of (t. %nacio reads, amon% others0 ... the said periodical published b+ Rommel Corro, contains articles tendin% to incite distrust and hatred for the Fovernment of the Philippines or an+ of its dul+ constituted authorities. 7p. $, Rollo8 &he above statements are mere conclusions of la 3 and 3ill not satisf+ the re;uirements of probable cause. &he+ can not serve as basis for the issuance of search 3arrant, absent of the e=istence of probable cause. n fact, as a conse;uence of the search 3arrant issued, the items confiscated from the premises of the office of the Philippine &imes at 9"/ Me**anine loor, Fochen%co Bld%., &.M. Gala3, Ermita, Manila 3ere the follo3in%: ". One bundle of assorted ne%ative1 . One bundle of assorted la+ out1 $. &hree folders of assorted articles23ritin%s used b+ Philippine &imes ne3s and other paraphernalias1
4. our tape 0 alle%ed speech of Ma+or Climaco, t3o alle%ed speeches of A;uino and a speech of one various artist1 5. One bundle 6ummies1 9. &en bundles of assorted copies of Philippine &imes issued on different dates 7Nos. 9, , #, !, "/, "", ", "$, "4 H "58: . One &+pe3riter Remin%ton Brand (on% Carria%e 3ith No. <4!$$1 #. One&+pe3riterAdlershort 3ith No. !//$/""1 !. &hree 7$8 bundles of Philippine &imes latest issue for Ba%uio Cit+ 7p. 9, Rollo8 n Stonehill vs. #io$no, / SCRA $#$, this Court held that search 3arrants authori*in% the sei*ure of boo>s of accounts and records Isho3in% all the business transactionsI of certain persons, re%ardless of 3hether the transactions 3ere le%al or ille%al, contravene the e=plicit comment of the Bill of Ri%hts that the thin%s to be sei*ed should be particularl+ described and defeat its ma'or ob'ective of eliminatin% %eneral 3arrants. n the case at bar, the search 3arrant issued b+ respondent 'ud%e allo3ed sei*ure of printed copies of the Philippine &imes, manuscripts2drafts of articles for publication, ne3spaper dummies, subversive documents, articles, etc., and even t+pe3riters, duplicatin% machines, mimeo%raphin% and tape recordin% machines. &hus, the lan%ua%e used is so all embracin% as to include all conceivable records and e;uipment of petitioner re%ardless of 3hether the+ are le%al or ille%al. &he search 3arrant under consideration 3as in the nature of a %eneral 3arrant 3hich is constitutionall+ ob'ectionable. Respondents do not den+ the fact that the business office of the IPhilippine &imesI of 3hich petitioner 3as the publishereditor 3as padloc>ed and sealed. &he conse;uence is, the printin% and publication of said ne3spaper 3ere discontinued. n Bur%os, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff of the Armed orces of the Philippines, supra, -e held that IJsluch closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press %uaranteed under the fundamental la3, and constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners freedom to e=press themselves in print. &his state of bein% is patentl+ anathematic to a democratic frame3or> 3here a free, alert and even militant press is essential for the political enli%htenment and %ro3th of the citi*enr+.I inall+, respondents ar%ue that 3hile the search 3arrant 3as issued on September !, "!#$ and 3as e=ecuted on the ver+ same da+, it 3as onl+ on November 9, "!#4, or one 7"8 +ear, one 7"8 month and si= 798 da+s 3hen petitioner filed his motion for the recall of the 3arrant and the return of the documents2personal properties. Davin% failed to act seasonabl+, respondents claim that petitioner is %uilt+ of laches. (aches is the failure or ne%lect, for an unreasonable and une=plained len%th of time, to do that 3hich b+ e=ercisin% due dili%ence, could or should have been done earlier. &he ne%li%ence or omission to assert a ri%ht 3ithin a reasonable time, 3arrantin% a presumption that the part+ entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it 7&i'am vs. Sibon%hano+, ("45/, April "5, "!9#, $ SCRA $58.
n his petition, Corro alle%ed that on October ", "!#$, less than fort+t3o 748 hours after the militar+ operatives shut do3n his ne3spaper on September !, "!#$, he 3as invited b+ the 6irectorFeneral PC2NP, and subse;uentl+ detained. &hereafter, he 3as char%ed 3ith the crime of incitin% to sedition before the Cit+ iscals Office in )ue*on Cit+, and on October , "!#$, a preventive detention action 3as served upon him. Conse;uentl+, he had to file a petition for habeas corpus. t 3as onl+ on November #, "!#4 3hen this Court issued its Resolution in F.R. No. 9#!9, entitled: n the Matter of the Petition for %abeas Corpus of Roel Corro Angle Corro vs. Minister &uan "once 'nrile, et al ., releasin% Rommel Corro on reco%ni*ance of his la3+ers, Att+s. Dumberto B. Basco, Re+naldo Ba%atsin% and Edilberto Balce, n the same month, November "!#4, petitioner filed his motion to recall 3arrant and to return the sei*ed documents. -hen respondent 'ud%e denied the motion, he came to s. Considerin% the above circumstances, the claim that petitioner had abandoned his ri%ht to the possession of the sei*ed properties is incorrect. -DEREORE, Search -arrant No. )//// issued b+ the respondent 'ud%e on September !, "!#$ is declared null and void and, accordin%l+, SE& AS6E. &he pra+er for a 3rit of mandator+ in'unction for the return of the sei*ed articles is FRAN&E6 and all properties sei*ed thereunder are hereb+ ordered RE(EASE6 to petitioner. urther, respondents (t. Col. Berlin A. Castillo and lst (t. Fodofredo M. %nacio are ordered to REOPEN the padloc>ed office premises of the Philippine &imes at 9"/ Me**anine loor, Fochen%co Bld%., &.M. Gala3, Ermita, Manila. SO OR6ERE6. (eehan$ee, Ma$asiar, Concepcion, &r., Melencio)%errera, "lana, 'scolin, *utierre+, &r., #e la !uente, Cuevas and Alapay, &&., concur. !ernando, C.&., concur in the result. Aquino, &., too$ no part.
