FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241868. October 15, 2018.]
REYNOLD FLORES, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 15, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241868 — Reynold Flores, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
After a judicious review of petitioner's allegations and in accordance with Rule 45 and other related provisions of the Rules of Court, the Court resolves to DENY the present Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in rendering the assailed Resolutions 1 dated April 5, 2018 and August 2, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 155174.
Petitioner posits that the CA committed serious error in not giving due course to his petition and dismissing the same outright for being procedurally infirm. On the merits, petitioner avers that the search warrant was issued based on hearsay. He contends that: 1) P/Chief Inspector Kenneth G. Pugong (PCI Pugong) had no personal knowledge; 2) the application for search warrant was based on the lone and unverified deposition of Artemio Baliyang Bongtay (Bongtay); 3) no justification for the filing of the application in Manila; and 4) no deposition in writing of the applicant was attached to the application.
On the propriety of dismissal due to technicalities, the Court finds no reversible error on the part of the CA. In this case, the CA pointed out not just one but three (3) procedural infirmities:
1. the RTC was not impleaded as public respondent;
2. the affidavit of service was defective as affiant did not provide proof of identity required under AM No. 09-8-13-SC; and
3. the Jurat and Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping [were] defective for failure of the Notary Public to indicate his Notarial Commission Number. AScHCD
The Court emphasizes that, since petitioner's right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege, he is bound to a strict observance of the periods of appeal and the form of the petition, including the required accompanying documents, which requirements are not merely mandatory, but jurisdictional. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, procedural rules, We must stress, should be treated with utmost respect and due regard since they are essential in the administration of justice.
In any case, the herein petition is likewise unsound in substance. Petitioner essentially claims that no probable cause existed to justify the issuance of the search warrant.
No less than Section 2, 2 Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides for the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant, viz.: (1) there must be probable cause; (2) probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. 3
The determination of probable cause in the issuance of a search warrant is a matter wholly dependent on the finding of the trial judge in the exercise of his judicial function. When a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is made by a trial judge, the finding is accorded respect by reviewing courts for it is presumed that a judicial function has been regularly performed, absent a showing to the contrary, and as long as there was substantial basis for that determination. 4
Besides, the determination of probable cause requires a calibration of evidence or a review of facts which is not allowed in this Rule 45 petition.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed Resolutions dated April 5, 2018 and August 2, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 155174.
The Court of Appeals former Special Fifteenth Division and the Regional Trial Court of Tabuk City, Kalinga, Branch 25 are DROPPED as party-respondents pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per S.O. No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Additional Member of the First Division per S.O. No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018. AcICHD
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.
2.Section 2. 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 be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause 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 persons or things to be seized.
3.Del Castillo v. People, 680 Phil. 447, 456 (2012).
4.Worldwide Web Corp. v. People, 724 Phil. 18-46 (2014).