Inconsistencies sink QC search warrant vs peace talks staff
MANILA, Philippines — A Quezon City court has quashed the search warrants issued by another court that led to the arrest of two National Democratic Front peace talks staff due to inconsistencies in the witness statement that was the basis for them.
QC Regional Trial Court Branch 77 Presiding Judge Ferdinand Baylon granted the motion of Alexander Ramonita Birondo and Winona Marie Birondo to quash the two search warrants issued by Quezon City RTC Executive Judge Cecilyn Burgos-Villavert.
“In examining the records of the application for these search warrants, most particularly the sworn statement... of the primary witness, as well as the copy of TSN of his testimony in court, the court has reached the conclusion that the SW Nos. 5898 and 5899 should be quashed and the recovered grenade/explosive device, firearm and ammunition should be suppressed as evidence against the two accused,” the ruling made public on Thursday read.
Villavert’s issuance of the search warrant was under the circular of the Office of the Court Administrator that allowed Manila and QC executive judges to issue search warrants outside their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has since repealed this provision as progressive groups pressed the tribunal to put safeguards on rules that they said have been weaponized against activists.
RELATED: SC now requires law enforcers to wear body cameras in implementation of warrants
The case
In a statement, the Public Interest Law Center, the Birondos’ counsels, said the two were arrested July 23, 2019. Police had then said they were pursuing a “wanted criminal” when the accused intervened. They were arrested and then charged with obstruction of justice.
Later that day, the police said they learned that the Birondos were in possession of firearms and grenade and applied search warrants, which they implemented the same evening—while the accused were in Camp Caringal, the Quezon City police headquarters.
The police’s application for search warrant was hinged on the testimony of a garbage collector.
The witness, in his sworn statement, testified that while he was collecting trash, he saw through the window a gun and grenade on the bed. He said he thought these were the possessions of a soldier or cop who was visiting.
He claimed that he saw the same gun with ammunition on a table the following day. A man was supposedly wiping the gun’s magazine and what he thought was grenade.
But in subsequent paragraphs of the statement, the witness only mentioned seeing the gun. He said he told police about it when he was approached by a cop.
The court noted that it appears that while the witness saw and reported the gun and ammunition to the police, the grenade was not mentioned.
"This puzzling dissonance in the witness’ sworn statement could have been clarified during the hearing for the application of the search warrants but unfortunately, such was not touched upon during his testimony," the court said, adding that this is "problematic."
It noted that between a grenade and gun, the former is deadlier and thus commands more attention. In the ordinary course of human narration, the grenade would be the first to be mentioned, the court said.
In open court, the witness also appeared to have been prodded to remember the grenade based on the questioning that sought to affirm if he saw the grenade.
“This lack of sufficient questioning regarding the grenade juxtaposed with the witness’ sworn testimony in court, leads this court to conclude that there is no basis for issuance of SW 5989,” the ruling read.
Particularity of warrant
The court also ruled the search warrant for the firearm and ammunition defective as it only described the items as “firearm of unknown caliber and various ammunition” and does not comply with the requirement of particularity.
It also noted that there were many peeople going in and out of the apartment unit with some carrying tucked firearms which means any of them may be the possessor of the firearm and ammunition.
The court also pointed out that there was nothing in the testimony that categorically said the accused are the possessors of the firearm and ammunition.
"Thus, other than the evidence that the accused were the tenants of the said apartment, there was no evidence definitely linking any of them to the firearm and ammunition seen by the witness," the court said.
It added that the witness never identified the accused as possessing the firearm, which, it said, "should have prompted the law enforcers to conduct a more thorough investigation to support their applications for a search warrant."
The court also pointed out that there were questions about the janitor and how he came to collect garbage in the said unit and who had been paying him and how he became a witness for the application of the warrant.
“The questions left unanswered and the inconsistencies not clarified belies the existence of probable cause which justify the issuance of the search warrants. For this reason, the warrants should be quashed,” it added.
The PILC said they are poised to move for the dismissal of the cases against the Birondos.
"The pernicious practice of securing warrants against activists and peace workers can be countered with keen vigilance and the observance of due process. But as the evils in the administration of justice are sought to be averted, we in PILC and those in other law groups will continue to engage and defend in the courts. The struggle is far from over," they added.
- Latest
- Trending
