Case No. 27 Corro vs. Lising PDF

Preview

Summary

CORRO VS LISING137 SCRA 541 (July 15, 1985)FACTS: Petitioner (Rommel Corro) was a publisher and editor of the Philippine Times. Upon application filed by Lt. Col. Berlin Castillo of the Philippine Constabulary-Criminal Investigation Service, respondent (RTC Judge Esteban Lising of Quezon City) issue...

Description

CORRO VS LISING 137 SCRA 541 (July 15, 1985) FACTS: • •

• • • • • • • •

Petitioner (Rommel Corro) was a publisher and editor of the Philippine Times. Upon application filed by Lt. Col. Berlin Castillo of the Philippine Constabulary-Criminal Investigation Service, respondent (RTC Judge Esteban Lising of Quezon City) issued a search warrant authorizing the search and seizure of: (a) printed copies of Philippine Times, (b) manuscripts/drafts of articles for publication in the Philippine Times, (c) newspaper dummies of the Philippine Times, (d) subversive documents, articles, printed matters, handbills, leaflets, banners, and (e) typewriters, duplicating machines, mimeographing and tape recording machines, video machines and tapes. Said items/articles were used and being used as instrument or means of committing the crime of inciting to sedition under (Article 142) of the Revised Penal Code. Respondents also padlocked and sealed the business office of the "Philippine Times" of which petitioner was the publisher-editor. Thereafter, petitioner filed an urgent motion to recall warrant and to return documents/personal properties alleging, among others that said seized properties were not in any way connected with the offense of inciting to sedition. Said motion was denied by respondent judge in a resolution, pertinent portions which state that “the proper forum from which the petition to withdraw articles should be addressed in the office of City Fiscal of Quezon City and that it is not even with this Branch of the Court that the offense of inciting to sedition is pending.” Hence, petition for certiorari and mandamus, with application for preliminary injunction and restraining order to enjoin respondent RTC from proceeding with the trial praying that search warrant issued by respondent judge be declared null and void; that a mandatory injunction be issued to return immediately the documents/properties illegally seized; that final injunction be issued enjoining respondents from the utilizing said document/properties as evidence; and that respondent be directed to re-open the padlocked business office of the Philippine Times.

ISSUE: Was there sufficient probable cause for the issuance of search warrant? RULING: • No, there was no sufficient probable cause for the issuance of search warrant. • SEC. 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution provides that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” • Section 3, Rule 126 of the New Rules of Court provides the requisites for issuing search warrant. (1) A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense; (2) to be determined by the judge or justice of the peace after examination; (3) under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; (4) and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. • In the present case, the search warrant issued by respondent judge allowed seizure of printed copies of the Philippine Times, manuscripts/drafts of articles for publication, newspaper dummies, subversive documents, articles, etc., and even typewriters, duplicating machines, mimeographing and tape recording machines. • Thus, the language used is so all embracing as to include all conceivable records and equipment of petitioner regardless of whether they are legal or illegal. • The search warrant under consideration was in the nature of a general warrant which is constitutionally objectionable. • Therefore, an application for search warrant must state with particularly the alleged subversive materials published or intended to be published by the publisher and editor of the Philippine Times, Rommel Corro. • In addition, the statements made by Col. Castillo and Lt. Ignacio in the affidavits are mere conclusions of law and will not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. • WHEREFORE, Search Warrant issued by the respondent judge is declared null and void and, accordingly, SET ASIDE. • The prayer for a writ of mandatory injunction for the return of the seized articles is GRANTED and all properties seized thereunder are hereby ordered RELEASED to petitioner. • Further, respondents Lt. Col. Berlin A. Castillo and 1st Lt. Godofredo M. Ignacio are ordered to RE-OPEN the padlocked office premises of the Philippine Times.

Important Notes: The affidavit of Col. Castillo states that in several issues of the Philippine Times: we found that the said publication in fact foments distrust and hatred against the government of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities, defined and penalized by Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1835; (p. 22, Rollo) and, the affidavit of Lt. Ignacio reads, among others—the said periodical published by Rommel Corro, contains articles tending to incite distrust and hatred for the Government of the Philippines or any of its duly constituted authorities. (p. 23, Rollo)**** Probable cause, as defined in Burton v. St. Paul, M&M. Ry. Co., is constituted by “such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances, as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his actions, and the means taken in prosecuting it, are legally just and proper.” As We have stated in Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, 133 SCRA 800, "mere generalization will not suffice." A search warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. "The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant- to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be committed, — that abuses may not be committed. The crime of sedition is committed by persons who rise up against the government in a violent way. In particular, Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code states that sedition is committed by those rising “publicly and tumultuously” to prevent, in a forceful, intimidating or illegal way, the execution of a law, administrative order, or a popular election; to obstruct the government or any public officer from freely performing his functions; or to inflict act of hate or revenge against a public officer or employee or their property. Inciting to sedition, meanwhile, is charged against those who, without direct part in the crime of sedition, persuade others to commit seditious acts by means of by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end. ART. 142. Inciting to Sedition. - The penalty of prision correctional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon any person or persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Republic of the Philippines or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices....