As correctly pointed out by the petitioner and the
OSG, the terms expressly used in the warrant were too all-embracing,
with the obvious intent of subjecting all the records pertaining to all
the transactions of the petitioner's office at the Register of Deeds to
search and seizure. Such tenor of a seizure warrant contravenes the
explicit command of the Constitution that there be a particular
description of the things to be seized.24
The executing officer's sole function is to apply the description to
its subject matter, which function may frequently involve the exercise
of limited discretion in identifying the property described. A
description of such generality, however, as to lodge in the executing
officer virtually unlimited discretion as to what property shall be
seized, is repugnant to the Constitution.25 As we held in the early case of People v. Veloso:26
A search warrant must conform strictly to the
requirements of the constitutional and statutory provisions under which
it was issued. Otherwise, it is void. The proceedings upon search
warrants, it has rightly been held, must be absolutely legal, for there
is not a description of process known to law, the execution of which is
more distressing to the citizen. Perhaps there is none which excites
such intense feeling in consequence of its humiliating and degrading
effect. The warrant will always be construed strictly without, however,
going into the full length of requiring technical accuracy. No
presumptions of regularity are to be invoked in aid of the process when
an officer undertakes to justify under it.27
xxxxxxx
The questioned warrant in this case is a scatter-shot warrant28
for having been issued for more than one offense - Falsification of
Land Titles under Article 171 and Article 213 of the Revised Penal Code,
and violation of Rep. Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act. A warrant must be issued upon probable cause
in connection with one specific offense.29
In fact, a careful perusal of the application for the warrant shows
that the applicant did not allege any specific act performed by the
petitioner constituting a violation of any of the aforementioned
offenses..
Thus, the questioned warrant must be struck down for
having been issued in contravention of the 1987 Constitution, the Rules
of Criminal Procedure, and existing jurisprudence. As the Court, through
Justice Concepcion held in the landmark case of Stonehill v. Diokno:30
To uphold the validity of the warrant in question
would be to wipe out completely one of the most fundamental rights
guaranteed in our Constitution, for it would place the sanctity of the
domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the
mercy of the whims, caprice, or passion of peace officers. This is
precisely the evil sought to be remedied by the constitutional provision
above-quoted – to outlaw the so-called general warrants. It is not
difficult to imagine what would happen, in times of keen political
strife, when the party in power feels that the minority is likely to
wrest it, even though by legal means. 31
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Former SPECIAL FIFTEENTH DIVISION, JUDGE ISAAC R. DE ALBAN, Regional trial Court, Ilagan, Isabela, Branch 16, and FRANKLIN M. JAVIER, NBI Head Agent, Cagayan Valley Regional Office II, Ilagan, Isabela, respondents.
ARIEL C. VALLEJO, petitioner,
