BENJAMIN V.

KHO and ELIZABETH ALINDOGAN, Petitioners, 

v. HON. ROBERTO L. MAKALINTAL and NATIONAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION, Respondents.

G.R. No. 94902-06. April 21, 1999

FACTS: The petitioners questioned the NBI as to the use of the objects
seized by them and sought to return immediately said items, including the
firearms, ammunition and explosives, radio communication
equipment, hand sets, transceivers, two units of vehicles and  motorcycle.

The petitioners claimed that the issuance of search warrants was invalid on the
ground that there was no probable cause to execute it. Based on their
contention, it was not sufficient that the respondent’s surveillance
and investigation was conducted within the premises involved prior to
the application for the search warrants under controversy, to actually
vest in the applicant’s personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
showing or indicating that they committed the crime.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners’ contention of the absence of probable cause in
the case at hand is tenable

RULING: No, the petitioners’ contention is untenable. With reference to the records, it
was clearly testified by the NBI agents that they saw guns brought to the
two houses searched and motor vehicles and spare parts were stored therein.
The applicant Max Salvador even declared that when he personally attended
the surveillance, together with his witnesses, they saw the weapons being
actually unloaded from motor vehicles and carried to the premises referred
to. Based on the testimony of the NBI Agent Ali Vargas, he saw firearms being
unloaded from a Toyota Lite-Ace van and brought to the house in question
in BF Homes, Paranaque since he was there inside the compound posing
as an appliance agent. Thus, it can be clearly discerned that the
search warrants in question were based on the personal knowledge of the
applicants and their witnesses.

The Court found no basis in altering the findings and conclusions arrived at by
the respondent Judge after examining the applicants and witnesses. Said
judge had the sole opportunity to assess the latter’s testimonies and their
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances sufficient enough to create a
probable cause. This is then a justifiable ground in coming up with accurate
accounts of surveillance and investigation. There was clearly no basis for doubt
in the reliability of his findings.