People v. Salanguit

9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME356
VOL.356,APRIL19,2001
683
Peoplevs.Salanguit
*
G.R.Nos.13325455.April19,2001.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

ROBERTOSALANGUITyKO,accusedappellant.
SearchesandSeizuresSearchWarrantsInissuingasearchwarrant,
judgesmustcomplystrictlywiththerequirementsoftheConstitutionandthe
Rules of Criminal Procedureno presumption of regularity can be invoked
in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to justify its issuance.
Rule126,4oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedureprovides
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.
684
684
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Salanguit
that a search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in
connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the
judgeafterexaminationunderoathoraffirmationofthecomplainantandthe
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines. In issuing a search warrant, judges must comply strictly with
the requirements of the Constitution and the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
No presumption of regularity can be invoked in aid of the process when an
officerundertakestojustifyitsissuance.Nothingcanjustifytheissuanceof
thesearchwarrantunlessallthelegalrequisitesarefulfilled.
SameSameThefactthattherewasnoprobablecausetosupportthe
application for the seizure of drug paraphernalia does not warrant the
conclusion that the search warrant is voidthis would be material only if
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015711bcbadebad93171003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/21
9/10/2016
drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police.The fact that there
was no probable cause to support the application for the seizure of drug
paraphernaliadoesnotwarranttheconclusionthatthesearchwarrantisvoid.
Thisfactwouldbematerialonlyifdrugparaphernaliawasinfactseizedby
the police. The fact is that none was taken by virtue of the search warrant
issued. If at all, therefore, the search warrant is void only insofar as it
authorizedtheseizureofdrugparaphernalia,butitisvalidastotheseizure
of methamphetamine hydrochloride as to which evidence was presented
showingprobablecauseastoitsexistence.
SameSameIt would be a drastic remedy indeed if a warrant, which
was issued on probable cause and particularly describing the items to be
seized on the basis thereof, is to be invalidated in toto because the judge
erredinauthorizingasearchforotheritemsnotsupportedbytheevidence.
It would be a drastic remedy indeed if a warrant, which was issued on
probablecauseandparticularlydescribingtheitemstobeseizedonthebasis
thereof,istobeinvalidatedintoto because the judge erred in authorizing a
search for other items not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we hold
that the first part of the search warrant, authorizing the search of accused
appellants house for an undetermined quantity of shabu, is valid, even
thoughthesecondpart,withrespecttothesearchfordrugparaphernalia,is
not.
SameSameDangerousDrugsActSincetheDangerousDrugsActof
1972isaspeciallawthatdealsspecificallywithdangerousdrugswhichare
subsumed into prohibited and regulated drugs and defines and
penalizescategoriesofoffenseswhicharecloselyrelatedorwhichbelongto
thesameclassorspecies,one(1)searchwarrantmaythusbevalidlyissued
forthesaidviolationsoftheAct.Indeed,inPeoplev.Dichosothesearch
685
685
Peoplevs.Salanguit
warrant was also for Violation of R.A. 6425, without specifying what
provisionsofthelawwereviolated,anditauthorizedthesearchandseizure
ofdriedmarijuanaleavesandmethamphetaminehydrochloride(shabu)and
setsofparaphernalias(sic).ThisCourt,however,upheldthevalidityofthe
warrant: Appellants contention that the search warrant in question was
issuedformorethan(1)offense,hence,inviolationofSection3,Rule126
oftheRulesofCourt,isunpersuasive.Heengagesinsemanticjugglingby
suggesting that since illegal possession of shabu, illegal possession of
marijuana and illegal possession of paraphernalia are covered by different
articlesandsectionsoftheDangerousDrugsActof1972,thesearchwarrant
is clearly for more than one (1) specific offense. In short, following this
theory, there should have been three (3) separate search warrants, one for
2/21
9/10/2016
illegal possession of shabu, the second for illegal possession of marijuana

and the third for illegal possession of paraphernalia. This argument is
pedantic. The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals
specificallywithdangerousdrugswhicharesubsumedintoprohibitedand
regulateddrugsanddefinesandpenalizescategoriesofoffenseswhichare
closely related or which belong to the same class or species. Accordingly,
one(1)searchwarrantmaythusbevalidlyissuedforthesaidviolationsof
theDangerousDrugsAct.
Same Same Where the location of the accuseds house was made
determinate by reference to the affidavit supporting the warrant, and made
part of the record, there can be no doubt that the warrant described the
place to be searched with sufficient particularity.The rule is that a
description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the
warrantcan,withreasonableeffort,ascertainandidentifytheplaceintended
to be searched. For example, a search warrant authorized a search of
Apartment Number 3 of a building at 83 Pleasant Street, Malborough,
Massachusetts.Asitturnedout,therewerefiveapartmentsinthebasement
and six apartments on both the ground and top floors and that there was an
Apartment Number 3 on each floor. However, the description was made
determinate by a reference to the affidavit supporting the warrant that the
apartment was occupied by the accused Morris Ferrante of 83 Pleasant
Street, Malboro, Mass. In this case, the location of accusedappellants
house being indicated by the evidence on record, there can be no doubt that
thewarrantdescribedtheplacetobesearchedwithsufficientparticularity.
SameSamePlain View DoctrineRequisitesUnder the plain view
doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has
the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and
may be presented in evidence.Under the plain view doctrine, unlawful
ob
686
686
Peoplevs.Salanguit
jects within the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the
position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in
evidence.Forthisdoctrinetoapply,theremustbe:(a)priorjustification(b)
inadvertent discovery of the evidence and (c) immediate apparent illegality
of the evidence before the police. The question is whether these requisites
werecompliedwithbytheauthoritiesinseizingthemarijuanainthiscase.
SameSameSameOnce the valid portion of the search warrant has
beenexecuted,theplainviewdoctrinecannolongerprovideanybasisfor
admittingtheotheritemssubsequentlyfoundthedoctrinemaynotbeused
to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until
3/21
9/10/2016
somethingincriminatingatlastemerges.Becausethelocationoftheshabu
was indicated in the warrant and thus known to the police operatives, it is
reasonable to assume that the police found the packets of the shabu first.
Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed, the plain
viewdoctrinecannolongerprovideanybasisforadmittingtheotheritems
subsequently found. As has been explained: What the plain view cases
have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior
justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently
acrossapieceofevidenceincriminatingtheaccused.Thedoctrineservesto
supplement the prior justificationwhether it be a warrant for another
object,hotpursuit,searchincidenttolawfularrest,orsomeotherlegitimate
reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the
accusedand permits the warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of
the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent
to the police that they have evidence before them the plain view doctrine
may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to
anotheruntilsomethingincriminatingatlastemerges.
SameSearchIncidenttoLawfulArrestAsearchincidenttoalawful
arrest is limited to the person of the one arrested and the premises within
hisimmediatecontrol.Theonlyotherpossiblejustificationforanintrusion
by the police is the conduct of a search pursuant to accusedappellants
lawfularrestforpossessionofshabu.However,asearchincidenttoalawful
arrestislimitedtothepersonoftheonearrestedandthepremiseswithinhis
immediate control. The rationale for permitting such a search is to prevent
thepersonarrestedfromobtainingaweapontocommitviolence,ortoreach
forincriminatoryevidenceanddestroyit.
687
687
Peoplevs.Salanguit
SamePlainViewDoctrineWherethemarijuanabrickswerewrapped
in newsprint, there is no apparent illegality to justify their seizure.The
marijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint. There was no apparent
illegality to justify their seizure. This case is similar to People v. Musa in
which we declared inadmissible the marijuana recovered by NARCOM
agentsbecausethesaiddrugswerecontainedinaplasticbagwhichgaveno
indicationofitscontents.
SameNopresumptionofregularitymaybeinvokedbyanofficerinaid
of the process when he undertakes to justify an encroachment of rights
securedbytheConstitution.Nopresumptionofregularitymaybeinvoked
by an officer in aid of the process when he undertakes to justify an
encroachment of rights secured by the Constitution. In this case, the
marijuanaallegedlyfoundinthepossessionofaccusedappellantwasinthe
form of two bricks wrapped in newsprint. Not being in a transparent
4/21
9/10/2016
container, the contents wrapped in newsprint could not have been readily
discernibleasmarijuana.Norwastherementionofthetimeormannerthese
items were discovered. Accordingly, for failure of the prosecution to prove
that the seizure of the marijuana without a warrant was conducted in
accordance with the plain view doctrine, we hold that the marijuana is
inadmissible in evidence against accusedappellant. However, the
confiscationofthedrugmustbeupheld.
Same The circumstances that the occupants of the house refused to
openthedoordespitethefactthatthesearchingpartyknockedonthedoor
several times fancy and the agents saw suspicious movements of the people
insidethehouse,justifiedthesearchingpartysforcibleentryintothehouse,
founded as it is on the apprehension that the execution of their mission
would be frustrated unless they do so.In contrast, Aguilar and Duanos
claim that they had to use some force in order to gain entry cannot be
doubted.Theoccupantsofthehouse,especiallyaccusedappellant,refusedto
open the door despite the fact that the searching party knocked on the door
severaltimes.Furthermore,theagentssawthesuspiciousmovementsofthe
peopleinsidethehouse.Thesecircumstancesjustifiedthesearchingpartys
forcible entry into the house, founded as it is on the apprehension that the
executionoftheirmissionwouldbefrustratedunlesstheydoso.
APPEALfromadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofQuezon
City,Br.96.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
688
688
Peoplevs.Salanguit
PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant.
MENDOZA,J.:
1
Thisisanappealfromthedecision, datedJanuary27,1998,ofthe
Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City, finding accused
appellant Roberto Salanguit y Ko guilty of violation of 16 of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and sentencing him
accordinglytosufferimprisonmentrangingfromsix(6)monthsof
arrestomayor,asminimum,tofour(4)yearsandtwo(2)monthsof
prisioncorreccional,asmaximum,andofS8ofthesamelawand
sentencinghimforsuchviolationtosufferthepenaltyofreclusion
perpetuaandtopayafineofP700,000.00.
Charges against accusedappellant for violations of R.A. No.
6425werefiledonDecember28,1995.InCriminalCaseNo.Q95
64357,theinformationalleged:
5/21
9/10/2016
That on or about the 26th day of December 1995, in Quezon City,

Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly possess and/or use 11.14 grams of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride(Shabu)aregulateddrug,withoutthenecessarylicenseand/or
prescriptiontherefor,inviolationofsaidlaw.
2
CONTRARYTOLAW.
InCriminalCaseNo.Q9564358,theinformationcharged:
That on or about the 26th day of December 1995, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused not being authorized by law to possess or use
anyprohibiteddrug,did,thenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandknowingly
have in his possession and under his custody and control 1,254 grams of
Marijuana,aprohibiteddrug.
3
CONTRARYTOLAW.
When4 arraigned on May 21, 1996, accusedappellant pleaded not

guilty, whereuponhewastried.
_______________
1PerJudgeLucasP.Bersamin.
2Rollo,p.13.
3Id.,p.14.
4RTCRecords(CriminalCaseNo.Q9564358),p.50.
689
689
Peoplevs.Salanguit
Threewitnesseswerepresentedbytheprosecution:P/Insp.SoniaS.
Ludovico,forensicchemistandchiefofthePhysicalScienceBranch
ofthePhilippineNationalPoliceCrimeLaboratory,SeniorInspector
RodolfoAguilaroftheNarcoticsCommand,CampCrame,Quezon
City, and PO3 Rolando Duazo of Station 10, Kamuning, Quezon
City, a field operative. The prosecution evidence established the
following:
5
OnDecember26,1995,Sr.Insp.Aguilarappliedforawarrant in
theRegionalTrialCourt,Branch90,Dasmarias,Cavite,tosearch
the residence of accusedappellant Robert Salanguit y Ko on
BinhaganSt.,Novaliches,QuezonCity.Hepresentedashiswitness
SPO1EdmundBadua,whotestifiedthatasaposeurbuyer,hewas
able to purchase 2.12 grams of shabu from accusedappellant. The
saletookplaceinaccusedappellantsroom,andBaduasawthatthe
shabu was taken by accusedappellant from a cabinet inside his
room. The application was granted, and a search warrant was later
issuedbyPresidingJudgeDoloresL.Espaol.
6/21
9/10/2016
Atabout10:30p.m.ofDecember26,1995,agroupofabout10
policemen,alongwithonecivilianinformer,wenttotheresidenceof
6
accusedappellanttoservethewarrant.
The police operatives knocked on accusedappellants door, but
nobody opened it. They heard people inside the house, apparently
panicking. The police
operatives then forced the door open and
7
enteredthehouse.
Aftershowingthesearchwarranttotheoccupantsofthehouse,
8
Lt.Cortesandhisgroupstartedsearchingthehouse. Theyfound12
small heatsealed transparent plastic bags containing a white
crystalline substance, a paper clip box also containing a white
crystallinesubstance,andtwobricksofdriedleaveswhichappeared
9
tobemarijuanawrappedinnewsprint havingatotalweightofap
_______________
5RTCRecordsforSearchWarrantNo.160,A,p.4.
6TSN,p.4,Oct.29,1996.
7Id.,pp.56.
8Id.,p.6.
9TSN,p.22,June9,1997.
690
690
Peoplevs.Salanguit
10
proximately 1,255 grams. A receipt of the items

seized was
11
prepared,buttheaccusedappellantrefusedtosignit.
After the search, the police operatives took accusedappellant
withthemtoStation10,EDSA,Kamuning,QuezonCity,alongwith
12
theitemstheyhadseized.
PO3Duazorequestedalaboratoryexaminationoftheconfiscated
13
evidence. The white crystalline substance with a total weight of
2.77gramsandthosecontainedinasmallboxwithatotalweightof
8.37 grams were found to be positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride.Ontheotherhand,thetwobricksofdriedleaves,one
weighing 425
grams and the other 850 grams, were found to be
14
marijuana.
For the defense, accusedappellant testified in his own behalf.
His testimony was corroborated by his motherinlaw, Soledad
Arcano.
Accusedappellant testified that on the night of December 26,
1995, as they were about to leave their house, they heard a
commotion at the gate and on the roof of their house. Suddenly,
about 20 men in civilian attire, brandishing long firearms,15climbed
overthegateanddescendedthroughanopeningintheroof.
7/21
9/10/2016
Whenaccusedappellantdemandedtobeshownasearchwarrant,
a piece of paper inside a folder was waved in front of him. As
accusedappellant fumbled for his glasses,
however, the paper was
16
withdrawnandhehadnochancetoreadit.
Accusedappellant claimed that he was ordered to stay in one
placeofthehousewhilethepolicemenconductedasearch,forcibly
opening cabinets and taking his bag containing
money, a licensed
17
.45caliberfirearm,jewelry,andcannedgoods.
_______________
10Id.,p.7.
11RTCRecords(Crim.CaseNo.Q9564358),p.10.
12TSN,June9,1997,p.8.
13Id.,p.9.
14Decision,p.3Rollo,p.24.
15TSN,pp.14,Nov.24,1997.
16Id.,pp.56.
17Id.,p.9.
691
691
Peoplevs.Salanguit
Thepolicemenleftataround12:30a.m.ofDecember27,1995,and,
afterputtinghandcuffsonaccusedappellant,tookhimwiththemto
the NARCOM
on EDSA, Quezon City, where accusedappellant
18
wasdetained.
Accusedappellants motherin law, Soledad Arcano,
corroborated his testimony. Arcano testified that the policemen
ransacked their house,
ate their food, and took away canned goods
19
andothervaluables.
Afterhearing,thetrialcourtrendereditsdecision,thedispositive
portionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendered:
1. In Criminal Case No. Q9564357, for violation of Sec. 16,
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, finding the accused
ROBERTOSALANGUITyKOguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtof
the crime charged and he is hereby accordingly sentenced to suffer
an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of six (6) months of
arrestomayorandamaximumoffour(4)yearsandtwo(2)months
ofprisioncorreccionaland,
2. InCriminalCaseNo.Q9564358,forviolationofSec.8,Republic
Act No. 6425, as amended, finding the accused ROBERTO
SALANGUIT y KO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
8/21
9/10/2016
charged and he is hereby accordingly sentenced to suffer reclusion

perpetuaandtopayafineofP700,000.00.
Theaccusedshallfurtherpaythecostsofsuit.
The11.14gramsofmethamphetaminehydrochlorideandthe1,254grams
of marijuana bricks are hereby confiscated and condemned for disposition
accordingtolaw.TheevidencecustodianofthisCourtisherebydirectedto
turnsuchsubstancesovertotheNationalBureauofInvestigationpursuantto
law.
20
SOORDERED.
Hencethisappeal.Accusedappellantcontendsthat
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THE
SEARCHWARRANTVALID
_______________
18Id.
19TSN,Oct.6,1997.
20Rollo,pp.4041.
692
692
Peoplevs.Salanguit
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED

APPELLANTFORILLEGALPOSSESSIONOFMETHAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDE(SHABU)
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
ACCUSEDAPPELLANTFORVIOLATION8,R.A.NO.6425
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE
TWO(2)BRICKSOFMARIJUANA
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE
POLICEMEN USED EXCESSIVE FORCE IN ENFORCING THE
SEARCHWARRANT.
Accusedappellant is contesting his conviction on three grounds.

First, the admissibility of the shabu allegedly recovered from his
residence as evidence against him on the ground that the warrant
used in obtaining it was invalid. Second, the admissibility in
evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from accusedappellant
pursuant to the plain view doctrine. Third, the employment of
unnecessaryforcebythepoliceintheexecutionofthewarrant.
21
First.Rule126,4oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedure
providesthatasearchwarrantshallnotissueexceptuponprobable
cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined
personallybythejudgeafterexaminationunderoathoraffirmation
9/21
9/10/2016
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and

particularlydescribingtheplacetobesearchedandthethingstobe
seizedwhichmaybeanywhereinthePhilippines.
Inissuingasearchwarrant,judgesmustcomplystrictlywiththe
requirements of the Constitution and the Rules of Criminal
Procedure.Nopresumptionofregularitycanbeinvokedinaidofthe
22
processwhenanofficerundertakestojustifyitsissuance. Nothing
can justify the issuance of the search warrant unless all the legal
requisitesarefulfilled.
Inthiscase,thesearchwarrantissuedagainstaccusedappellant
reads:
_______________
21FormerlyRule126,3ofthe1985RulesonCriminalProcedure.
22Nolascov.Pao,139SCRA152 (1985) citingMata v. Bayona,128 SCRA 388
(1984).
693
693
Peoplevs.Salanguit
SEARCHWARRANTNO.160
For:ViolationofRA6425
SEARCHWARRANT
TOANYPEACEOFFICER:
GREETINGS:
It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after
examining under oath SR. INSP. RODOLFO V. AGUILAR,
PNPandhiswitnessSPO1EDMUNDM.BADUA,PNPthat
thereisprobablecausetobelievethatROBERTSALANGUIT
hasinhispossessionandcontrolinhispremisesBinhaganSt.,
SanJose,QuezonCityasshowninAnnexA,theproperties
towit:
UNDETERMINEDQUANTITYOFSHABUAND
DRUGPARAPHERNALIA
whichshouldbeseizedandbroughttotheundersigned.
You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search
anytime of the day/night of the premises abovedescribed and
forthwith seize and take possession of the abovestated
properties and bring said properties to the undersigned to be
dealtwithasthelawdirects.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND this 26th day of December
1995atImus,Cavite,Philippines.
10/21
9/10/2016
(SGD.)DOLORESL.ESPAOL
Judge
Accusedappellant assails the validity of the warrant on three
grounds: (1) that there was no probable cause to search for drug
paraphernalia(2)thatthesearchwarrantwasissuedformorethan
one specific offense and (3) that the place to be searched was not
describedwithsufficientparticularity.
ExistenceofProbableCause
The warrant authorized the seizure of undetermined quantity of
shabu and drug paraphernalia. Evidence was presented showing
probablecauseoftheexistenceofmethamphetaminehydrochloride
or shabu. Accusedappellant contends, however, that the search
warrantissuedisvoidbecausenoevidencewaspresented
694
694
Peoplevs.Salanguit
showingtheexistenceofdrugparaphernaliaandthesameshouldnot
23
havebeenorderedtobeseizedbythetrialcourt.
Thecontentionhasnomerit.Tobesure,SPO1EdmundBadua,
theintelligenceofficerwhoactedasaposeurbuyer,didnottestify
intheproceedingsfortheissuanceofasearchwarrantonanything
aboutdrugparaphernalia.Hestated:
Q BeingamemberoftheIntelligenceandOperationSection,
NMDU,NARCOM,doyourememberifyouwereassignedintoa
monitoringorsurveillancework?
A Yes,sir.
Q Ofwhatparticularassignmentorareawereyouassignedfor
monitoringorsurveillance?
A ItswithintheQuezonCityareaparticularlyahousewithouta
numberlocatedatBinhaganSt.,SanJose,QuezonCity,sir.
Q Doyouknowthepersonwhooccupiesthespecificplace?
A Yes,sir,heisROBERTSALANGUIT@Robert.
Q Areyoufamiliarwiththatplace?
A Yes,sir,aspartofmysurveillance,Iwasabletopenetrateinside
theareaandestablishedcontractwithROBERTSALANGUIT
aliasRobertthroughmyfriendwhointroducedmetotheformer.
Q InwhatparticularoccasiondidyoumeetROBERTSALANGUIT
aliasRobert?
11/21
9/10/2016
A WhenIwasintroducedbymyfriendasagoodbuyeranddrug
pusherofshabu,sir.
Q Wereyouabletobuyatthattime?
A Yes,sir.
Q Howmuchifyoucanstillremembertheamountinvolved?
A Iwasabletobuytwopointtwelve(2.12)gramsofshabuinthe
amountofTwoThousandSevenHundredFifty(P2,750.00)
pesos,sir.
Q HavingestablishedcontactwithROBERTSALANGUIT@
Robert,doyouknowwherethestuff(shabu)werebeingkept?
A Yes,sir,insideacabinetinsidehisroom.
_______________
23Rollo,p.29.
695
695
Peoplevs.Salanguit
Q Howwereyouabletoknowtheplacewherehekeptthestuff?
A WhenIfirstboughtthe2.12gramsofshabufromhim,itwas
doneinsidehisroomandIsawthattheshabuwastakenbyhim
insidehiscabinet.
Q Doyouknowwhoisincontrolofthepremises?
A Yes,sir,itwasROBERTSALANGUIT@Robert.
Q Howsureareyou,thattheshabuthatyouboughtfromROBERT
SALANGUIT@Robertisgenuineshabu?
A AfterIleftthehouseofROBERTSALANGUIT@Robert,I
proceededbacktoourofficeandreportedtheprogressofmy
missiontoourChiefandpresentedtohimthe2.12gramsof
shabuIboughtfromthesubject.Thenafterwards,ourChief
formallyrequestedtheChiefPNPCentralCrimeLaboratory
Services,NPDC,forTechnicalAnalysiswhichyieldedpositive
resultforshabu,aregulateddrugasshownintheattached
certificationofPNPCLSresultNo.D41495dated19Dec.95.
Q Doyouhaveanythingmoretoaddorretractfromyourstatement?
A Yes,sir,Iwasofferedbyhim(ROBERTSALANGUIT@
Robert)thatanythingIwishtobuybiggerquantityofshabu,heis
12/21
9/10/2016
willingtotransacttomeoncashbasisathispriceofOne
ThousandSevenHundredFifty(P1,750.00)pesospergram.
Q Areyouwillingtosignyourstatementfreelyandvoluntarily?
A Yes,sir.
24
However, the fact that there was no probable cause to support the
application for the seizure of drug paraphernalia does not warrant
the conclusion that the search warrant is void. This fact would be
materialonlyifdrugparaphernaliawasinfactseizedbythepolice.
The fact is that none was taken by virtue of the search warrant
issued.Ifatall,therefore,thesearchwarrantisvoidonlyinsofaras
it authorized the seizure of drug paraphernalia, but it is valid as to
theseizureofmethamphetaminehydrochlorideastowhichevidence
waspresentedshowingprobablecauseastoitsexistence.Thus,in
25
Adayv.SuperiorCourt thewarrantproperly
_______________
24RTCRecordsforProceedingsofSearchWarrantNo.160,p.5.
2555Cal.2d789,13Cal.Rptr.415,362P.2d47(1961)citedin WAYNE R. LA
FAVE,SEARCHANDSEIZURE,ATREATISEONTHEFOURTHAMENDMENT
258(2nded.1987).
696
696
Peoplevs.Salanguit
described two obscene books but improperly described other

articles.Itwasheld:
Althoughthewarrantwasdefectiveintherespectsnoted,itdoesnotfollow
thatitwasinvalidasawhole.Suchaconclusionwouldmeanthattheseizure
of certain articles, even though proper if viewed separately, must be
condemned merely because the warrant was defective with respect to other
articles. The invalid portions of the warrant are severable from the
authorization relating to the named books, which formed the principal basis
of the charge of obscenity. The search for and seizure of these books, if
otherwise valid, were not rendered illegal by the defects concerning other
articles....Insoholdingwedonotmeantosuggestthatinvalidportions
of a warrant will be treated as severable under all circumstances. We
recognize the danger that warrants might be obtained which are essentially
general in character but as to minor items meet the requirement of
particularity, and that wholesale seizures might be made under them, in the
expectationthattheseizurewouldinanyeventbeupheldastotheproperty
13/21
9/10/2016
specified. Such an abuse of the warrant procedure, of course, could not be

tolerated.
Itwouldbeadrasticremedyindeedifawarrant,whichwasissued
onprobablecauseandparticularlydescribingtheitemstobeseized
on the basis thereof, is to be invalidated in toto because the judge
erred in authorizing
a search for other items not supported by the
26
evidence. Accordingly, we hold that the first part of the search
warrant, authorizing the search of accusedappellants house for an
undetermined quantity of shabu, is valid, even though the second
part,withrespecttothesearchfordrugparaphernalia,isnot.
SpecificityoftheOffenseCharged
Accusedappellant contends that the warrant was issued for more
than one specific offense because possession or use of
methamphetamine hydrochloride and possession of drug
paraphernalia
are punished under two different provisions of R.A.
27
No.6425. It
_______________
26LAFAVE,supraat28.
27
SEC. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs.The penalty of reclusion
perpetuatodeathandafinerangingfromfivehundredthousandpesostotenmillion
pesosshallbeimposeduponanypersonwho,unless
697
697
Peoplevs.Salanguit
willsufficetoquotewhatthisCourtsaidinasimilarcasetodispose
ofthiscontention:
While it is true that the caption of the search warrant states that it is in
connectionwithViolationofR.A.6425,otherwiseknownastheDangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, it is clearly recited in the text thereof that There is
probablecausetobelievethatAdolfoOlaesaliasDebieandaliasBabyof
No. 628 Comia St., Filtration, Sta. Rita, Olongapo City, has in their
possession and control and custody of marijuana dried
stalks/leaves/seeds/cigarettes and other regulated/prohibited and exempt
narcotics preparations which is the subject of the offense stated above.
AlthoughthespecificsectionoftheDangerousDrugsActisnotpinpointed,
there is no question at all of the specific offense alleged to have been
committed as a basis for the finding of probable cause. The search warrant
alsosatisfiestherequirementintheBillofRightsoftheparticularityofthe
14/21
9/10/2016
descriptiontobemadeoftheplacetobesearchedandthepersonsorthings
28
tobeseized.
29
Indeed, in People v. Dichoso the search warrant was also for

ViolationofR.A.6425,withoutspecifyingwhatprovisionsofthe
lawwereviolated,anditauthorizedthesearchandseizureofdried
marijuana leaves and methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and
sets of paraphernalias (sic). This Court, however, upheld the
validityofthewarrant:
Appellants contention that the search warrant in question was issued for
more than (1) offense, hence, in violation of Section 3, Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court, is unpersuasive. He engages in semantic juggling by
suggesting that since illegal possession of shabu, illegal possession of
marijuana and illegal possession of paraphernalia are covered by different
articlesandsectionsoftheDangerousDrugsActof1972,thesearchwar
_______________
authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug subject to the provisions of
Section20hereof.
SEC.16.PossessionorUseofRegulatedDrugs.Thepenaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeath
andfinerangingfromfivehundredthousandpesostotenmillionpesosshallbeimposedupon
anypersonwhoshallpossessoruseanyregulateddrugwithoutthecorrespondinglicenseor
prescription,subjecttotheprovisionsofSection20hereof.(AsamendedbySec.16,RANo.
7659.)
28Olaesv.People,155SCRA486,490491(1987).
29223SCRA174(1993).
698
698
Peoplevs.Salanguit
rantisclearlyformorethanone(1)specificoffense.Inshort,followingthis
theory, there should have been three (3) separate search warrants, one for
illegal possession of shabu, the second for illegal possession of marijuana
and the third for illegal possession of paraphernalia. This argument is
pedantic. The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals
specificallywithdangerousdrugswhicharesubsumedintoprohibitedand
regulateddrugsanddefinesandpenalizescategoriesofoffenseswhichare
closely related or which belong to the same class or species.Accordingly,
one(1)searchwarrantmaythusbevalidlyissuedforthesaidviolationsof
30
theDangerousDrugsAct.
31
Similarly,inanothercase, thesearchwarrantwascaptioned:For
Violation of P.D. No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.).
Thevalidityofthewarrantwasquestionedonthegroundthatitwas
issued without reference to any particular provision in P.D. No.
15/21
9/10/2016
1866,whichpunishedseveraloffenses.Weheld,however,thatwhile
illegalpossessionoffirearmsispenalizedunder1ofP.D.No.1866
and illegal possession of explosives is penalized under 3 thereof,
thedecreeisacodificationofthevariouslawsonillegalpossession
of firearms, ammunitions, and explosives which offenses are so
related astobe subsumed within the category of illegal possession
offirearms,etc.underP.D. No. 1866. Thus, only one warrant was
necessarytocovertheviolationsunderthevariousprovisionsofthe
saidlaw.
ParticularityofthePlace
Accusedappellantcontendsthatthesearchwarrantfailedtoindicate
theplacetobesearchedwithsufficientparticularity.
Thiscontentioniswithoutmerit.AstheSolicitorGeneralstates:
. . . While the address stated in the warrant is merely Binhagan St., San
Jose, Quezon City, the trial court took note of the fact that the records of
SearchWarrantCaseNo.160containedseveraldocumentswhichidentified
the premises to be searched, to wit: 1) the application for search warrant
which stated that the premises to be searched was located in between No. 7
and11atBinhaganStreet,SanJose,QuezonCity,2)the
_______________
30Id.,pp.184185.
31Prudentev.Dayrit,180SCRA69(1989).
699
699
Peoplevs.Salanguit
deposition of witness which described the premises as a house without a

number located at Binhagan St., San Jose, Quezon City and 3) the pencil
sketch of the location of the premises to be searched. In fact, the police
officers who raided appellants house under the leadership of Police Senior
Inspector Rodolfo Aguilar could not have been mistaken as Inspector
AguilarresidesinthesameneighborhoodinBinhaganwhereappellantlives
and in fact Aguilars place is at the end of appellants place in Binhagan.
Moreover, the house raided by Aguilars team is undeniably appellants
houseanditwasreallyappellantwhowasthetarget.Theraidingteameven
first ascertained through their informant that appellant
was inside his
32
residencebeforetheyactuallystartedtheiroperation.
Theruleisthatadescriptionoftheplacetobesearchedissufficient
iftheofficerwiththewarrantcan,withreasonableeffort,ascertain
33
and identify the place intended to be searched. For example, a
16/21
9/10/2016
search warrant authorized a search of Apartment Number 3 of a

building at 83 Pleasant Street, Malborough, Massachusetts. As it
turned out, there were five apartments in the basement and six
apartmentsonboththegroundandtopfloorsandthattherewasan
Apartment Number 3 on each floor. However, the description was
made determinate by a reference to the affidavit supporting the
warrant that the apartment was occupied by the
accused Morris
34
Ferrante of 83 Pleasant Street, Malboro, Mass. In this case, the
location of accusedappellants house being indicated by the
evidenceonrecord,therecanbenodoubtthatthewarrantdescribed
theplacetobesearchedwithsufficientparticularity.
In sum, we hold that with respect to the seizure of shabu from
accusedappellantsresidence,SearchWarrantNo.160wasproperly
issued, such warrant being founded on probable cause personally
determined by the judge under oath or affirmation of the deposing
witnessandparticularlydescribingtheplacetobesearchedandthe
thingstobeseized.
Second. The search warrant authorized the seizure of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu but not marijuana.
However,seizureofthelatterdrugisbeingjustifiedontheground
thatthe
_______________
32AppelleesBrief,pp.89Rollo,pp.140141.
33Prudentev.Dayrit,supra.
34Commonwealthv.Todisco,Mass.,294N.E.2d860(1973).
700
700
Peoplevs.Salanguit
drugwasseizedwithintheplainviewofthesearchingparty.This
iscontestedbyaccusedappellant.
Under the plain view doctrine, unlawful objects within the
plainviewofanofficerwhohastherighttobeinthepositionto
have that35 view are subject to seizure and may be presented in
evidence. For this doctrine to apply, there must be: (a) prior
justification (b) inadvertent discovery of the evidence and
(c)
36
immediateapparentillegalityoftheevidencebeforethepolice. The
question is whether these requisites were complied with by the
authoritiesinseizingthemarijuanainthiscase.
PriorJustificationandDiscoverybyInadvertence
17/21
9/10/2016
Becausethelocationoftheshabuwasindicatedinthewarrantand
thusknowntothepoliceoperatives,itisreasonabletoassumethat
the police found the packets of the shabu first. Once the valid
portion of the search warrant has been executed, the plain view
doctrine can no longer provide any basis for admitting the other
itemssubsequentlyfound.Ashasbeenexplained:
Whattheplainviewcaseshaveincommonisthatthepoliceofficerineach
of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he
cameinadvertentlyacrossapieceofevidenceincriminatingtheaccused.The
doctrineservestosupplementthepriorjustificationwhetheritbeawarrant
foranotherobject,hotpursuit,searchincidenttolawfularrest,orsomeother
legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed
against the accusedand permits the warrantless seizure. Of course, the
extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is
immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them the
plainviewdoctrinemaynotbeusedtoextendageneralexploratorysearch
37
fromoneobjecttoanotheruntilsomethingincriminatingatlastemerges.
Theonlyotherpossiblejustificationforanintrusionbythepoliceis
theconductofasearchpursuanttoaccusedappellantslaw
_______________
35Peoplev.Musa,217 SCRA 597 (1993) citingHarrisv.UnitedStates, 390 U.S.
234,19L.Ed.2d1067(1968).
36Peoplev.Musa,supracitingCoolidgev.NewHampshire,403U.S.433,29L.Ed.
2d564(1971).
37Coolidgev.NewHampshire,supra.
701
701
Peoplevs.Salanguit
ful arrest for possession of shabu. However, a search incident to a

lawful arrest is limited to the person38of the one arrested and the
premiseswithinhisimmediatecontrol. Therationaleforpermitting
such a search is to prevent the person arrested from obtaining a
weapontocommitviolence,ortoreachforincriminatoryevidence
anddestroyit.
The police failed to allege in this case the time when the
marijuana was found, i.e., whether prior to, or contemporaneous
with,theshabusubjectofthewarrant,orwhetheritwasrecovered
on accusedappellants person or in an area within his immediate
control. Its recovery, therefore, presumably during the search
conducted after the shabu had been recovered from the cabinet, as
attestedtobySPO1Baduainhisdeposition,wasinvalid.
18/21
9/10/2016
ApparentIllegalityoftheEvidence
The marijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint. There was no
apparent illegality
to justify their seizure. This case is similar to
39
People v. Musa in which we declared inadmissible the marijuana
recovered by NARCOM agents because the said drugs were
containedinaplasticbagwhichgavenoindicationofitscontents.
Weexplained:
Moreover, when the NARCOM agents saw the plastic bag hanging in one
cornerofthekitchen,theyhadnoclueastoitscontents.Theyhadtoaskthe
appellant what the bag contained. When the appellant refused to respond,
theyopeneditandfoundthemarijuana.UnlikeKerv.California,wherethe
marijuana was visible to the police officers eyes, the NARCOM agents in
thiscasecouldnothavediscoveredtheinculpatorynatureofthecontentsof
the bag had they not forcibly opened it. Even assuming then, that the
NARCOM agents inadvertently came across the plastic bag because it was
within their plain view, what may be said to be the object in their plain
view was just the plastic bag and not the marijuana. The incriminating
natureofthecontentsoftheplasticbagwasnotimmediatelyapparentfrom
the plain view of said object. It cannot be claimed that the plastic bag
clearlybetrayeditscontents,whetherbyitsdistinc
_______________
38People v. Musa,supra,citingRobbins v. California,453 U.S. 420, 69 L. Ed. 2d 744
(1981).
39Supra.
702
702
Peoplevs.Salanguit
tive configuration, its40 transparency, or otherwise, that its contents are

obvioustoanobserver.
Nopresumptionofregularitymaybeinvokedbyanofficerinaidof
theprocesswhenheundertakestojustifyanencroachmentofrights
41
secured by the Constitution. In this case, the marijuana allegedly
foundinthepossessionofaccusedappellantwasintheformoftwo
bricks wrapped in newsprint. Not being in a transparent container,
the contents wrapped in newsprint could not have been readily
discernible as marijuana. Nor was there mention of the time or
mannertheseitemswerediscovered.Accordingly,forfailureofthe
prosecution to prove that the seizure of the marijuana without a
warrantwasconductedinaccordancewiththeplainviewdoctrine,
19/21
9/10/2016
we hold that the marijuana is inadmissible in evidence against

accusedappellant. However, the confiscation of the drug must be
upheld.
Third. Accusedappellant claims that undue and unnecessary
forcewasemployedbythesearchingpartyineffectingtheraid.
42
Rule 126, 7 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
provides:
Right to break door or window to effect search.The officer, if refused
admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose
andauthority,maybreakopenanyouterorinnerdoororwindowofahouse
oranypartofahouseoranythingthereintoexecutethewarrantorliberate
himselforanypersonlawfullyaidinghimwhenunlawfullydetainedtherein.
Accusedappellants claim that the policemen had clambered up the roof
ofhishousetogainentryandhadbrokendoorsandwindowsintheprocess
is unsupported by reliable and competent proof. No affidavit or sworn
statement of disinterested persons, like the barangay officials or neighbors,
hasbeenpresentedbyaccusedappellanttoattesttothetruthofhisclaim.
_______________
40Id.,p.612.
41Nolascov.Pao,supra.
42FormerlyRule126,6ofthe1985RulesonCriminalProcedure.
703
703
Peoplevs.Salanguit
In contrast, Aguilar and Duanos claim that they had to use some
forceinordertogainentrycannotbedoubted.Theoccupantsofthe
house,especiallyaccusedappellant,refusedtoopenthedoordespite
thefactthatthesearchingpartyknockedonthedoorseveraltimes.
Furthermore,theagentssawthesuspiciousmovementsofthepeople
insidethehouse.Thesecircumstancesjustifiedthesearchingpartys
forcible entry into the house, founded as it is on the apprehension
that the execution of their mission would be frustrated unless they
doso.
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. Q9564357, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City, finding
accusedappellant Roberto Salanguit y Ko guilty of possession of
illegal drugs under 16 of RA. No. 6425, otherwise known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer a
prison term ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, and four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as maximum, and ordering the confiscation of 11.14
gramsofmethamphetaminehydrochlorideisAFFIRMED.
20/21
9/10/2016
InCriminalCaseNo.Q9564358,thedecisionofthesamecourt
finding accusedappellant Roberto Salanguit y Ko guilty of
possession of prohibited drugs under 8 of R.A. No. 6425, as
amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay a fine of P700,000.00 is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE and accusedappellant is ACQUITTED of the
crime charged. However, the confiscation of the 1,254 grams of
marijuana, as well as the 11.14 grams of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, and its disposition as ordered by the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo(Chairman),Quisumbing,BuenaandDeLeon,Jr.,
JJ.,concur.
Judgment in Criminal Case No. Q9564357 affirmed but
reversedandsetasideinCriminalCaseNo.Q9564358,accused
appellantacquittedtherein.
Notes.Objectscouldnotbeconsideredtohavebeenseizedin
plainviewwheretherewasnovalidintrusionandtheevidence
704
704
Peoplevs.DelaCruz
was not inadvertently discovered. (People vs. Bolasa, 321 SCRA

459[1999])
Jurisprudenceallowstheseizureofpersonaltydespiteabsenceof
warrant under the plain view doctrine, so long as the area of
search is within the immediate control of the arrested person and
that the object of the search was open to the eye. (People vs. De
Guzman,351SCRA573[2001)
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
21/21

People v. Salanguit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Salanguit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Salanguit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/10/2016

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

illegal possession of shabu, the second for illegal possession of marijuana

That on or about the 26th day of December 1995, in Quezon City,

When4 arraigned on May 21, 1996, accusedappellant pleaded not

proximately 1,255 grams. A receipt of the items

charged and he is hereby accordingly sentenced to suffer reclusion

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED

Accusedappellant is contesting his conviction on three grounds.

of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and

described two obscene books but improperly described other

specified. Such an abuse of the warrant procedure, of course, could not be

SEC. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs.The penalty of reclusion

Indeed, in People v. Dichoso the search warrant was also for

deposition of witness which described the premises as a house without a

search warrant authorized a search of Apartment Number 3 of a

ful arrest for possession of shabu. However, a search incident to a

tive configuration, its40 transparency, or otherwise, that its contents are

we hold that the marijuana is inadmissible in evidence against

was not inadvertently discovered. (People vs. Bolasa, 321 SCRA

You might also like