A.M. No. 16-05-142-RTC. September 5, 2017

**A.M. No. 16-05-142-RTC. September 5, 2017** is a Decision 2017 by the Supreme Court.

On April 26, 2016, the OCA sent a team to conduct a spot audit of search warrant applications raffled to Branch 170, due to persistent reports pertaining to the alleged irregular issuance of search warrants by Presiding Judge xxx.

## Case Details

* Re: Report on the Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 170, Malabon City
* A.M. No. 16-05-142-RTC. September 5, 2017
* Justice Mariano Del Castillo
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/september2017/16-05-142-RTC.pdf
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/september2017/16-05-142-RTC\_peralta.pdf

## Issues

* ***The Report on the Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit***
* ***Judge xxx's Comment***
* ***Recommendations of the OCA***

## Info

"The absence of a statement of compelling reasons, however, is not a ground for the outright denial of a search warrant application, since it is not one of the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant. Section 4 of Rule 126 is clear on this point: SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. - A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge 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 things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. In other words, the statement of compelling reasons is only a mandatory requirement in so far as the proper venue for the filing of a search warrant application is concerned. It cannot be viewed as an additional requisite for the issuance of a search warrant."

In this case, the OCA found Judge xxx's issuance of the subject search warrants to have been motivated by bad faith,[100] as evidenced by the following attendant circumstances:

1. First, the high incidence of search warrant operations that yielded negative results, remained unserved, or otherwise were never returned to the court;
2. Second, Judge Docena appears to have thrown leading questions during the examination of the applicant and the witness in SW 16-257 and SW 14-134;
3. Third, four search warrants issued by Judge Docena, i.e. Search Warrant Nos. 13-160-MN, 13-161-MN, MN-13-162, and MN-13-163, have been nullified by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132860 for insufficiency of the compelling reasons alleged in the search warrant applications;
4. And fourth, there were search warrants that appear to have been issued ahead of the dates of filing of their respective applications; search warrants that were released to the witness instead of the applicant; and search warrants which were issued on the date of filing of the application, but appear to have been received by the applicant a day in advance.

We are not convinced. These circumstances alone are clearly insufficient to overturn the presumption that Judge xxx acted in good faith in issuing the subject search warrants.

## Decision

**WHEREFORE**, the Court:

1. FINDS Hon. xxx., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Malabon City, and
 then Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Malabon City, **GUILTY** of simple misconduct, and hereby orders him to pay a **FINE** in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), with a **STERN WARNING** that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely;

2. FINDS Atty. xxx, Clerk of Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Malabon City, **GUILTY** of simple misconduct, and hereby orders her to pay a **FINE** in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), with a **STERN WARNING** that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely;

3. FINDS Hon. xxx, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 170, Malabon City, **GUILTY** of gross neglect of duty, and hereby **SUSPENDS** him from office for a period of two (2) years without pay, with a **STERN WARNING** that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely;

4. FINDS Atty. xxx, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 170, Malabon City, **GUILTY** of simple neglect of duty, and hereby **SUSPENDS** him from office for a period of one (1) month without pay, with a **STERN WARNING** that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely;

5. FINDS Ms. xxx, Clerk-in-Charge, and Ms. xxx, Ms. xxx, Ms. xxx, and Ms. xxx, Court Stenographers, Regional Trial Court, Branch 170, Malabon City, **GUILTY** of simple neglect of duty, and are **ADMONISHED** to be more diligent and circumspect in the performance of their duties.