2 hours ago
1
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) Third Division dismissed a petition filed by former lawmaker Arnolfo Teves Jr., which sought to nullify search warrants and suppress evidence seized during a high-profile raid on his Negros Oriental residence.
The ruling, promulgated on April 8, 2026, affirmed that the lower court did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied Teves' motion to quash the warrants and suppress the resulting evidence.
Teves filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging that a lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in its handling of his motions
In his plea, the former lawmaker assailed the orders dated Aug. 28, 2025 and Oct. 2, 2025, issued by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 12
The first order in August had denied Teves’ omnibus motion to quash two search warrants and his motion to suppress the evidence seized during a March 2023 raid in Bayawan City, except for items found in a parked vehicle.
The second order, issued in October, had denied his motion for reconsideration of that initial ruling.
The challenge stemmed from a March 10, 2023, operation at Teves’ property in Barangay Malabugas, Bayawan City.
Law enforcement officers implemented two search warrants for alleged violations of the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act and the Law on Explosives
During the search, authorities uncovered a cache of weaponry, including M14 and M16 rifles, an M203 grenade launcher, hand grenades and thousands of rounds of assorted ammunition hidden in various parts of the house.
Teves assailed the validity of the warrants, arguing they were issued without probable cause and were founded on the "deceitful and perjured testimony" of witness Gemuel Hobro.
Hobro, who claimed to have worked for the Teves family for 14 years as part of a "liquidation squad," provided the sworn statements that led to the raid.
Teves further contended that the search exceeded its legal boundaries, asserting that police should have been restricted to searching only the three bedrooms marked with an "X" on a sketch map, rather than the entire residential complex.
The court’s ruling. The Court of Appeals found no merit in these arguments, stating that the determination of probable cause by a trial judge is entitled to great deference and should only be disturbed if there is a "gross misapprehension of facts."
The appellate court noted that because Hobro was personally examined by the issuing judge, his testimony could not be considered hearsay.
Furthermore, the CA ruled that minor inconsistencies in Hobro’s testimony regarding his personal background were not significant enough to impair his credibility regarding the presence of illegal items on the premises.
“These alleged inconsistencies, however, did not refer to the material facts and requisites pertinent to the issuance of a search warrant, i.e., the existence of an item that is the subject of a criminal activity and that it will be found in the place to be searched,” the court’s ruling read.
Addressing the scope of the search, the appellate court also rejected Teves' interpretation of the warrants.
The court held that the search warrants authorized the inspection of the "residential house" in its entirety and did not explicitly limit the officers to specific rooms.
According to the court, the "X" marks on the map served as a descriptive tool to identify the correct premises to be searched, rather than a restriction on the internal areas the police could access.
“The petitioner, however, failed to adduce evidence that the officers who enforced the search warrant were aware in advance that the cabinets inside the petitioner’s residence contained the subsequently seized firearms, ammunitions, and explosives,” the court’s ruling read.
“Neither was there proof that the authorities anticipated the discovery of other contraband upon the opening of the cabinets or that they requested that the cabinets be opened because they knew that these contained other firearms, ammunitions, and explosives,” it added.
