MANILA — Three detained activists, including the mother of a baby who died months after birth, are set to walk free after the Court of Appeals voided 2 search warrants used against them when they were arrested in Manila in November 2019.

“Search Warrants Nos. 5944 (19) and 5945 (19) are declared VOID for failure to meet the standards of a valid search warrant, and all evidence procured by virtue thereof are deemed inadmissible,” the CA Twelfth Division said in an undated ruling recently uploaded on its website.

Among the arrested activists was Reina Mae Nasino who was pregnant during her arrest.

Nasino gave birth to Baby River while under detention. The baby died after separation from her in October 2020.

• Detained mother's baby dies before given a chance to reunite

Arrested with Nasino were Ram Carlo Bautista and Alma Moran.

The voided search warrants were issued by Quezon City Regional Trial Court Executive Judge Cecilyn Burgos-Villavert, the same judge who issued search warrants against journalist Lady Ann Salem, peace talks staffers and several other trade unionists and activists which were also earlier invalidated.

• Court junks case vs journalist, trade unionist; calls search warrants 'fishing expedition'
• Bacolod court voids more search warrants issued by a QC judge
• QC court quashes search warrants vs NDF peace talks staff

In Nasino’s case, the CA 12th Division said there was grave abuse of discretion in issuing the search warrants, noting that 3 different addresses were indicated in the application — from #1822 Hondarez Street, corner Algeciras Street, Brgy. 444, Sampaloc to #672 Flora St. corner Clemente Street, Brgy. 183, Tondo and 672 Flora St. Gagalangin, Barangay 183, Tondo — all in Manila.

The warrants were eventually implemented at “#672 Flora St. Brgy. 178, Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila.”

“It is elemental that in order to be valid, a search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be searched,” CA Associate Justice Emily San Gaspar-Gito said in the 36-page ruling.

“[T]he glaring disparity in the addresses to be searched would have been clarified or resolved had there been a thorough examination of the applicant and his witnesses. A perusal of the depositions however shows that the questions asked were rehash of the contents of the application itself and the affidavits attached thereto. Thus, we are not convinced that probing questions were asked to the applicant and his witnesses to satisfy the existence of probable cause,” she added.

• Manila court acquits 2 activists, questions how search warrants were issued
• QC court junks firearms case, orders release of labor organizer

Under the Constitution and the Rules of Court, a search warrant can only be issued upon probable cause, which must be determined personally by the judge and not by the applicant or any other person.

A judge is required to examine, under oath, the complainant and the witnesses.

The warrant must also particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The appellate court said the varying addresses cast doubt on whether there was probable cause in the issuance of the search warrants and showed authorities could not rely on presumption of regularity.

“With the erroneous addresses that were never clarified, there is but one logical conclusion, i.e., the applicant and his witnesses did not really have personal knowledge of the surrounding facts which would have justified the issuance of the subject Search Warrants. Consequently, the existence of probable cause is doubtful,” it said.

The appellate court also ruled there were irregularities in the service of the search warrants, which violated the activists’ right against unreasonable search and seizure:

• The warrants were only addressed to Bautista but Moran and Nasino were subjected to search while they were hand-tied and made to lie face down.
• The search was also not made in Bautista’s presence.

It also noted that “while the address in the subject Search Warrants indicate Brgy. 183, the barangay officials who were present during the search were from Brgy. 178.”

The CA added that since the search warrants were invalid, the evidence seized could not be used against Nasino and the 2 others, following the doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

Concurring with San Gaspar-Gito were CA associate justices Eduardo Peralta, Jr. and Walter Ong.

CA also said Manila Judge Marivic Balisi-Umali, who heard Nasino’s case, should have brushed aside the late filing of motion for reconsideration in the greater interest of justice.

Balisi-Umali had denied the activists’ joint omnibus motion to quash and to suppress evidence and their subsequent motion for reconsideration which was filed beyond the 5-day period.

But the CA said the judge’s denial was “simply too strict a sanction compared with what petitioners stand to lose by reason of such denial.”

It also noted that the activists were prejudiced by the delayed release of the records of the search warrant application.

“[P]etitioners repeatedly requested for the record of the application for the subject Search Warrants so that they may use the same in questioning their validity but their requests were favorably acted upon only when the present Petition is already pending before this court, after the assailed Orders have been issued. This is obviously prejudicial to them as they failed to fully argue on the merits of the Motions before the respondent Judge,” CA said.

“At the same time, there was no concrete basis for the respondent Judge to arrive at the denial of their Motions,” it added.

RELATED VIDEO

Watch more News on iWantTFC