14 OGAYON V. PEOPLE (De Guzman)

OGAYON v.
PEOPLE
G.R. No. 188794 September 2, 2015 Brion, J.
Art. III, Sec. 2 ARLYCE DE GUZMAN
Petitioners: Respondents:
Honesto Ogayon y Diaz People of the Philippines
Recit Ready Summary
Honesto Ogayon was convicted of violating Sections 11 and 12 of The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
for unlawfully possessing 2 plastic sachets of shabu, 4 pcs of small aluminum foil, 4 pcs of disposable lighter, a blade,
and a roll of aluminum foil found in the comfort room of his house during a search and seizure conducted by the police
force. The RTC rejected his frame-up defense. The CA upheld the search warrant’s validity as Ogayon’s objections were
too late, which led them to conclude that he has waived the right to question its legality. Ogayon contends that his
constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizure is violated because 1) he did not waive the right which
the CA pertains; 2) he did not witness the search since the comfort room is located 5 meters away; 3) the search
warrant is defective for lacking the stenographic notes of the proceedings of which the issuing judge based the
existence of probable cause.
The Court explained that the defect which the petitioner assails is not a component of the constitutional right. What
is more important for the issuance of a warrant is the existence of probable cause. This determination must be
grounded on substantial basis which is defined as such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects in connection with the offense sought to
be seized are in the place sought to be searched. In this case, the records bear no evidence from which SC can infer
that the requisite examination was made and from which the factual basis for probable cause was derived. Moreover,
the rule that “any objections regarding the legality of a search warrant should be made during trial of the case” is only a
procedural rule and should not be prioritized over a constitutional right. Ogayon’s belated objection is not a sufficient
indication that he made a waiver.
In this case, the search warrant is declared null and the pieces of evidence obtained are inadmissible. Petitioner is
acquitted.
Facts of the Case
PROSECUTION’S VERSION
Police Chief Inspector Elmer Ferrera together with other members of the Albay Provincial Police Force proceeded to
petitioner’s house to enforce a search warrant for the seizure of alleged shabu paraphernalia. They handed a copy of
the warrant to Ogayon who allowed them to conduct the search. Some members of the police went to the comfort
room which was located five meters away. Falling from the CR’s roof, it was there where they found 2 plastic sachets of
shabu, 4 disposable lighters, a six-inch knife, a used foil, a roll of aluminum foil, and a Dorco blade. Inside the house they
found live ammunition for an M-16 rifle.
DEFENSE’S VERSION
He says that he did not know anything about the prohibited drugs, seeing them for the first time during their
inventory. Prior to the search, he was asleep. The police team did not present a search warrant. It was only during the
trial that he saw one. He also claimed that when the police searched the CR, SPO4 Caritos went to the Barangay Hall
first and when he returned, that’s when he shouted that there were drugs inside.
PROCEDURAL
The RTC rejected the frame-up defense and found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He appealed to the CA
questioning the validity of the search warrant because there is no transcript showing that the judge conducted the
examination of the applicant and his witnesses.
The CA upheld the validity of the search warrant due to the petitioner’s failure to make a timely objection against it
during the trial. The CA deemed that Ogayob waived the right to question the warrant’s legality.
Issues Ruling
1. WON failure to attach to the records the depositions of the complainant and his witnesses NO
and/or transcript of the judge’s examination by itself nullifies the warrant
2. WON petitioner had waived his right to question the legality of the search warrant NO
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. Failure to attach…
 Failure to attach to the records the depositions of the complainant and his witnesses and/or transcript of the
judge’s examination, though contrary to Rule 126, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court, does not by itself nullify a
warrant. It is merely a procedural rule.
 What the Constitution requires is for the judge to conduct an examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, after which he determines the existence of probable cause for
the issuance of a warrant.
 In this case, there is no substantial basis because there is nothing in the records that could indicate that the
issuing judge personally and thoroughly examined the applicant and his witnesses, for example, the
application for the search warrant and the affidavits could not be found, the testimonies given during
petitioner’s trial made no reference to the application for the search warrant, and SPO4 testified that he did not
apply and did not know who applied for the search warrant.
2. Waiver of right
 Courts should indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights; it
should not be presumed.
 As held in People v. Bodoso, the standard of waiver must be done with sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences.
 Sec. 14, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court (about making timely motions during the trial to quash the warrant and
to suppress the presentation of the seized items as evidence) was intended to resolve where to file such motion
and not to preclude belated objections against the search warrant’s validity.
 Objections not available during the proceedings for quashal of the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the
motion to suppress.
 Court usually brushes aside belated objections when they have been cured or addressed based on the records.
Disposition
Earlier decisions are reversed and set aside. Petitioner is acquitted.
Separate Opinions
N/A

14 OGAYON V. PEOPLE (De Guzman)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 OGAYON V. PEOPLE (De Guzman)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

14 OGAYON V. PEOPLE (De Guzman)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OGAYON v.

You might also like