The SC's First Division presided by Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban ruled that Coliflores failed to examine the police to find out if they have knowledge that the persons whose house they wanted to be searched had kept contrabands.
When members of the Cebu City police intelligence division raided the house of Bernardo Betoy Sr. on September 21, 1999, they never found any contraband, aside from the licensed 12-gauge shotgun, an airgun and a few rounds of ammunition.
Inspector Cesar Arquillano together with policemen Jesus Rojas and Rex Cabrera successfully convinced Coliflores to issue a search warrant because Betoy was believed to be keeping several guns in his house.
The policemen claimed that during their surveillance operation at the vicinity of Betoy's house in Cebu City, they saw some persons getting in and out of the dwelling carrying firearms.
According to the SC justices, Coliflores, despite the glaring insufficiency of the allegations of the policemen, still failed to elicit the necessary information that Betoy and his companions in the house were indeed guilty of illegally possessing guns.
The SC said the statement of Cabrera and Rojas claiming to have seen the firearms illegally possessed by Betoy and his companions does not constitute personal knowledge of the illegality of such possession, but instead it merely qualifies as personal belief.
"Coliflores could have directly asked the policemen if they have personal knowledge of the particular fact that Betoy and his companions do not have the necessary license or permit to possess the firearms which are in their custody," the SC ruling reads.
It was also learned that after the policemen raided Betoy's house, they failed to immediately turn over to the court the seized items by virtue of the search warrant.
Coliflores also failed to call the attention of the policemen about their failure to report the accomplishment of their search after the 10-day period had lapsed.
The SC justices said Coliflores should have ordered the policemen to turn over the seized evidence and if they had refused, he could cite the raiders with contempt of court and send them to jail.
"Thus, respondent judge fell short of the standard of competence required of magistrates in the performance of their functions," it added. - Rene U. Borromeo