The Court of Appeals (CA) has denied the appeal of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking the reversal of a January 27, 2023, CA ruling on the search warrant against a journalist and a union organizer.
The CA earlier affirmed the decision of a Mandaluyong regional trial court to quash the search warrant issued against red-tagged journalist Lady Ann Salem and union organizer Rodrigo Esparago.
In a resolution, the CA’s Twelfth Division through Associate Justice Jose Lorenzo dela Rosa held that the OSG failed to raise new arguments that would warrant the reconsideration of its January 27 decision.
“The motion for reconsideration fails to present any new and substantial matter, or any cogent and compelling reason which would justify reconsideration of this Court’s ruling,” the CA stressed.
“Let it be emphasized that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not impose on this Court the obligation to discuss and rule again on the grounds relied upon by petitioner, which were mere reiterations and of the issues previously raised and thorough determined and evaluated in this Court’s decision,” it said.
Salem, editor of Manila Today, and Esparago were arrested on December 10, 2020, after authorities claimed that they found illegal firearms including pistols, grenades, and ammunition during a raid at her residence in Mandaluyong.
The raid was conducted by virtue of a search warrant issued Quezon City Executive Judge Cecilyn Burgos-Villavert. In February 2021, the Mandaluyong RTC voided the issuance of the search and ruled that the illegally seized firearms are inadmissible against Salem and Esparago.
This led to the dismissal of the illegal possession of firearms and explosives against the two.
The Mandaluyong RTC declared the search warrant void for being vague after authorities failed to seize only the items covered by the warrant.
The CA upheld the ruling of the Mandaluyong RTC last January 27.
In its motion for reconsideration, the OSG insisted that the search warrant was valid “as it satisfied the requirements of specificity” and that it was issued in accordance with the law.
The OSG added that a general description of some items covered by the warrant should not invalidate the entire warrant.
It also maintained that inconsistent testimonies of witnesses in the application for the search warrants do not affect the probable cause finding of the judge.
However, the appellate court declared “the act of the searching officers in taking all the laptops and cellphones that they could get during the search is precisely the danger sought to be prevented by the constitutional requirement that the things to be seized must be particularly described in order that enforcement officers will not have unbridled discretion as to what articles they shall seize.”
The CA also noted the issues on the inconsistent statements and testimonies of the witnesses and the improper implementation of the search warrants had already been considered and passed upon in its January 27 decision.
“The filing of a motion for reconsideration does not impose on the Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards the issues raised and submitted for decision,” the CA explained
“This would be a useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as above stated, deemed waived because not asserted at the first opportunity,” the appellate court said.
