Dimal Andcastillo, V People, GR 216922, 18 Apr 2018

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 862 Page 1 of 48
G.R. No. 216922. April 18, 2018.*
JAYLORD DIMAL and ALLAN CASTILLO,

petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondent.
Criminal Law; Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention;

Penalties; Where a person kidnapped is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention, there is only one special complex
crime for which the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) provides the maximum penalty that shall be
imposed, i.e., death.—The petition is partly meritorious. Search
Warrant No. 10-11 was validly issued, but most of the items
seized pursuant thereto are inadmissible in evidence, as they
were neither particularly described in the warrant nor seized
under the “plain view doctrine.” At the outset, there is no merit to
petitioners’ contention that the search warrant was applied for in
connection with two unrelated offenses, i.e., kidnapping and
murder, in violation of Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
which requires that such warrant must be issued in relation to
one offense. Suffice it to state that where a person kidnapped is
killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, there is only one
special complex crime for which the last paragraph of Article 267
of the Revised Penal Code provides the maximum penalty that
shall be imposed, i.e., death.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Search Warrants;
Although there is no hard-and-fast rule as to how a judge may
conduct his examination,
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
63
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001788c30af8545653609003600fb002c... 01/04/2021
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 63

Dimal vs. People
it is axiomatic that the said examination must be probing and

exhaustive and not merely routinary, general, peripheral or
perfunctory.—Corollarily, the Court said in Oebanda v. People,
792 SCRA 623 (2016), that in an application for search warrant,
the mandate of the judge is for him to conduct a full and
searching examination of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce. “The searching questions propounded to the
applicant and the witnesses must depend on a large extent upon
the discretion of the judge. Although there is no hard-and-fast
rule as to how a judge may conduct his examination, it is
axiomatic that the said examination must be probing and
perfunctory. He must make his own inquiry on the intent and
factual and legal justifications for a search warrant. The
questions should not merely be repetitious of the averments
stated in the affidavits/deposition of the applicant and the
witnesses.”
Same; Same; Same; The judge has the prerogative to give his
own judgment on the application of the search warrant by his own
evaluation of the evidence presented before him.—As to petitioners’
claim that the judge did not ask anymore searching questions
after statements were made by Villador, the Court finds that
searching and probing questions were indeed propounded by
Judge Ong, and that there is no more necessity to ask Villador to
describe the position and state of the lifeless bodies, and the
specific place in the compound where the bodies were lying.
Villador could not have been expected to take a closer look into
the bloody bodies on the ground because Dimal was then holding
a pistol, and told him to leave if he cannot help. Petitioners would
do well to bear in mind that, absent a showing to the contrary, it
is presumed that a judicial function has been regularly performed.
The judge has the prerogative to give his own judgment on the
application of the search warrant by his own evaluation of the
evidence presented before him. The Court cannot substitute its
own judgment to that of the judge, unless the latter disregarded
facts before him/her or ignored the clear dictates of reason.
Same; Same; Same; A description of a place to be searched is
sufficient if the officer with the warrant can ascertain and identify
with reasonable effort the place intended, and distinguish it from
other places in the community.—A description of a place to be
searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can ascertain

and identify with reasonable effort the place intended, and
distinguish it from other places in the community. A designation
that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all
others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it,
satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness. To the
Court’s view, the above quoted search warrant sufficiently
describes the place to be searched with manifest intention that
the search be confined strictly to the place described. At any rate,
petitioners cannot be heard to decry irregularity in the conduct of
the search of the prem-
64
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dimal vs. People
ises of the Felix Gumpal Compound because, as aptly ruled

by the RTC, a Certification of Orderly Search was issued by the
barangay officials, and the presumption of regularity in the
performance of public duty was not sufficiently contradicted by
petitioners.
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) has consistently
ruled that the omnibus motion rule under Section 8, Rule 15 is
applicable to motion to quash search warrants.—The objection as
to the particularity of the place to be searched was belatedly
raised in petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the Order
denying their Omnibus Motion to quash. The Court has
consistently ruled that the omnibus motion rule under Section 8,
Rule 15 is applicable to motion to quash search warrants. In
Abuan v. People, 505 SCRA 799 (2006), it was held that “the
motion to quash the search warrant which the accused may file
shall be governed by the omnibus motion rule, Provided, however,
That objections not available, existent or known during the
proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the
hearing of the motion to suppress.” Accordingly, the trial court
could only take cognizance of an issue that was not raised in a
motion to quash if (1) said issue was not available or existent
when they filed the motion to quash the search warrant; or (2) the
issue was one involving jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Because petitioners’ objection as to the particularity of the place
to be searched was available when they filed their omnibus

motion to quash, and there being no jurisdictional issue raised,
their objection is deemed waived.
Same; Same; Same; A search warrant may be said to
particularly describe the things to be seized (1) when the
description therein is as specific as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow; or (2) when the description expresses a conclusion
of fact — not of law by which the warrant officer may be guided in
making the search and seizure; (3) and when the things to be
described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the
offenses for which the warrant is being issued.—Meanwhile, a
search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to
be seized (1) when the description therein is as specific as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow; or (2) when the description
expresses a conclusion of fact — not of law by which the warrant
officer may be guided in making the search and seizure; and (3)
when the things to be described are limited to those which bear
direct relation to the offenses for which the warrant is being
issued. The purpose for this requirement is to limit the articles to
be seized only to those particularly described in the search
warrant in order to leave the officers of the law with no discretion
regarding what items they shall seize, to the end that no
unreasonable searches and seizures will be committed.
65
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 65

Dimal vs. People
Same; Same; Same; Under American jurisprudence which has

persuasive effect in this jurisdiction, the degree of specificity
required in a search warrant’s description of the items to be
searched for and seized is flexible and will vary depending on the
crime involved and the types of items sought.—Under American
jurisprudence which has persuasive effect in this jurisdiction, the
degree of specificity required in a search warrant’s description of
the items to be searched for and seized is flexible and will vary
depending on the crime involved and the types of items sought. A
description is said to be valid if it is as specific as the
circumstances and the nature of the activity under investigation
will permit. But if the circumstances make an exact description of
the property to be seized a virtual impossibility, the searching

officer can only be expected to describe the generic class of the
items sought. The practical guide to determine whether a specific
search warrant meets the particularity requirement is for the
court to inquire if the officer reading the description in the
warrant would reasonably know what items to be seized.
Same; Same; Same; Having no direct relation to the said
crime, the 1,600 sacks of palay that were supposedly sold by the
victims to Dimal and found in his warehouse, cannot be a proper
subject of a search warrant because they do not fall under the
personal properties stated under Section 3 of Rule 126, to wit: (a)
subject of the offense; (b) stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or
fruits of the offense; or (c) those used or intended to be used as the
means of committing an offense, can be the proper subject of a
search warrant.—In Search Warrant No. 10-11, only two things
were particularly described and sought to be seized in connection
with the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder,
namely: (1) bloodstained clothes of Gemma Eugenio consisting of
a faded pink long sleeves jacket and a black t-shirt, and (2) a
0.9mm caliber pistol. Having no direct relation to the said crime,
the 1,600 sacks of palay that were supposedly sold by the victims
to Dimal and found in his warehouse, cannot be a proper subject
of a search warrant because they do not fall under the personal
properties stated under Section 3 of Rule 126, to wit: (a) subject of
the offense; (b) stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of
the offense; or (c) those used or intended to be used as the means
of committing an offense, can be the proper subject of a search
warrant.
Same; Same; Same; A warrant which lacks any description of
the items to be seized is defective and is not cured by a description
in the warrant application which is not referenced in the warrant
and not provided to the subject of the search.—The Court could
have rendered a favorable ruling if the application for search
warrant and supporting affidavits were incorporated by reference
in Search Warrant No. 10-11, so as to enable the warrant officer
to identify the specific clothes sought to be searched. This is
because under American jurisprudence, an otherwise overbroad
warrant will comply with
66
Dimal vs. People
the particularity requirement when the affidavit filed in

support of the warrant is physically attached to it, and the
warrant expressly refers to the affidavit and incorporates it with
suitable words of reference. Conversely, a warrant which lacks
any description of the items to be seized is defective and is not
cured by a description in the warrant application which is not
referenced in the warrant and not provided to the subject of the
search.
Same; Same; Searches and Seizures; Plain View Doctrine; For
the “plain view doctrine” to apply, it is required that the following
requisites are present: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of
the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a
position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the
discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may
be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
—With respect to the items under Return on the Search Warrant
indicated as “articles recovered/seized in plain view during the
conduct of the search,” it is well-settled that objects falling in
plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have
that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant
and may be introduced in evidence. For the “plain view doctrine”
to apply, it is required that the following requisites are present:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a
prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which
he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in
plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to
the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. As explained in People
v. Salanguit, 356 SCRA 683 (2001): 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 across a piece of evidence incriminating the
accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification
— whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search
incident to a lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for
being present unconnected with a search directed against the
accused — and 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 another until

something incriminating at last emerges.
Same; Same; Same; Immediately Apparent Test; The
“immediately apparent” test does not require an unduly high
degree of certainty as to the incriminating character of the
evidence, but only that the seizure be presumptively reasonable,
assuming that there is a probable cause to associate the property
with a criminal activity.—It bears emphasis that the
“immediately apparent” test does not require an unduly high
degree of certainty as to the
67
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 67

Dimal vs. People
incriminating character of the evidence, but only that the

seizure be presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is a
probable cause to associate the property with a criminal activity.
In view thereof, the 10 pieces of spent shell of calibre 0.22 ammo
cannot be admitted in evidence because they can hardly be used
in a 9mm caliber pistol specified in the search warrant, and
possession of such spent shells are not illegal per se. Likewise, the
following items supposedly seized under plain view cannot be
admitted because possession thereof is not inherently unlawful:
(a) 3 torn cloths; (b) black bag pack; (c) a piece of gold-plated
earring; (d) a suspected human hair; (e) a piece of embroidered
cloth; (f) 3 burned tire wires; (g) empty plastic of muriatic acid;
and (h) white T-shirt.
Same; Same; Search Warrants; Objects taken which were not
specified in the search warrant should be restored to the person
from whom they were unlawfully seized.—Notwithstanding the
inadmissibility in evidence of the items listed above, the Court
sustains the validity of Search Warrant No. 10-11 and the
admissibility of the items seized which were particularly
described in the warrant. This is in line with the principles under
American jurisprudence: (1) that the seizure of goods not
described in the warrant does not render the whole seizure illegal,
and the seizure is illegal only as to those things which was
unlawful to seize; and (2) the fact that the officers, after making a
legal search and seizure under the warrant, illegally made a
search and seizure of other property not within the warrant does
not invalidate the first search and seizure. To be sure, a search
warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party
to undertake a fishing expedition to confiscate any and all kinds
of evidence or articles relating to a crime. Objects taken which
were not specified in the search warrant should be restored to the
person from whom they were unlawfully seized.
Same; Same; Searches and Seizures; In Alih v. Castro, 151
SCRA 279 (1987), it was held that even if the search of petitioners’
premises was violative of the Constitution and the firearms and
ammunition taken therefrom are inadmissible in evidence,
pending determination of the legality of said articles they can be
ordered to remain in custodia legis subject to appropriate
disposition as the corresponding court may direct in the criminal
proceedings that have been or may thereafter be filed against
petitioners.—Although the Alien Certificates of Registration of
Lucio and Rosemarie and the BDO Passbook in the name of Lucio
are inadmissible in evidence, for not having been seized in
accordance with the “plain view doctrine,” these personal
belongings should be returned to the heirs of the respective
victims. Anent the live ammo of caliber 0.22 (marked as E-29 with
JAM markings), which could not have been used in a 0.9mm
caliber pistol, the same shall remain in custodia legis pending the
outcome of a criminal case that may be later filed against
petitioner
68

Dimal vs. People
Dimal. In Alih v. Castro, 151 SCRA 279 (1987), it was held

that even if the search of petitioners’ premises was violative of the
Constitution and the firearms and ammunition taken therefrom
are inadmissible in evidence, pending determination of the
legality of said articles they can be ordered to remain in custodia
legis subject to appropriate disposition as the corresponding court
may direct in the criminal proceedings that have been or may
thereafter be filed against petitioners.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.
PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the
Court of Appeals’ (CA) Decision1 dated August 27, 2014 and
Resolution2 dated February 4, 2015 in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
128355. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari under
Rule 65, assailing the Order3 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 87, which denied the
Omnibus Motion (Motion to Quash Search Warrant No. 10-
11, to Declare the Seized Items as Inadmissible in
Evidence) in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-12-175369 to Q-12-
175371.
The Facts
At around 6:00 p.m. of September 6, 2010, Lucio Pua,

Rosemarie Pua and Gemma Eugenio were scheduled to
visit the compound of petitioner Jaylord A. Dimal in
Echague, Isabela, to negotiate for the sale of palay. At
around 7:30 p.m., Lucio’s nephew, Edison Pua, went to
Dimal’s compound, asking for information as to the
whereabouts of Lucio, Rosemarie and Gemma. Dimal
informed Edison that they had left an hour ago. Unable to
locate his relatives, Edison went to the
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, with Associate

Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Mario V. Lopez, concurring; Rollo, pp. 44-
50.
2 Id., at pp. 52-53.
3 Presided by Judge Aurora A. Hernandez-Calledo; id., at pp. 94-102.
69
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 69
Dimal vs. People
police station in Alicia, Isabela, to report that they were missing,

then proceeded to seek assistance from the police station in
Echague.
Thereafter, Edison was escorted by two policemen to
Dimal’s compound, where they allegedly stayed and
observed the premises in the absence of Dimal until
September 7, 2010. On even date at around 5:30 a.m.,
Edison and the two policemen supposedly searched without
a warrant Dimal’s compound, but found no evidence
linking him to the disappearances.
On September 24, 2010, petitioner Allan Castillo was
accosted by the Echague Police, and allegedly tortured to
implicate Dimal in the killing of Lucio, Rosemarie and
Gemma. On September 25, 2010, a certain Eduardo Sapipi
was arrested due to the supposed statement made by
Castillo. Sapipi purportedly made an uncounseled
confession that Dimal shot the three victims, and ordered
him, Castillo and one Michael Miranda to cover up the
crime by throwing the bodies in a river.
On September 26, 2010, Dimal was arrested by the
Echague Police. On September 27, 2010, the Echague
Police filed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Hagan, Isabela, a criminal complaint for Kidnapping for
Ransom and Multiple Murder against Dimal, Castillo,
Sapipi, Miranda, Marvin Guiao and Robert Baccay.
On October 8, 2010, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Roy
Michael S. Malixi, a commissioned officer of the Philippine
National Police assigned with the Police Anti-Crime and
Emergency Response in Camp Crame, Quezon City, filed
an Application for the Issuance of a Search Warrant4 before
the RTC Hagan, Isabela, Branch 17, in connection with the
kidnapping and multiple murder of Lucio, Rosemarie and
Gemma.
In his application for search warrant, P/Insp. Malixi
stated that “he was informed, and verily believed that
JAYLORD ARIZABAL DIMAL @ JAY, 28 years old, a
resident of Felix Gumpal Compound, Ipil Junction, Isabela
and CMJ Building Dubinan East, Santiago City, has in
control of the following items” in the said address, to wit:
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 54-55.
70

Dimal vs. People
a. Personal belongings such as:

1. Driver’s License of Lucio Pua;
2. Alien Certificate of Registration Identification
cards of Lucio Pua and Rosemarie Pua;
3. ATM Cards such as BDO under Lucio Pua’s
accounts;
4. Deposit Slips in BDO accounts of Lucio Pua;
5. Receipts of the palay delivered;
6. Bloodstained clothes of the victims:
6.1. Rosemarie Pua’s green inner garment
with black blazer and brownish pedal
pants;
6.2. Lucio Pua’s black short and pink polo
shirt;
6.3. Gemma Eugenio y Estrada’s maong
pants, faded pink long sleeves jacket, black
striped T-shirt and a shoulder bag;
6.4. Polo T-shirt and faded pink jacket seen
beside the comfort room inside the
compound of the warehouse of Jayson
Dimal.
7. Picture of Shaira Mae Eugenio’s youngest sister
(Queen Sean Eugenio) seen inside the shoulder
bag of the victim, Gemma Eugenio.
b. 1,600 sacks of palay inside a warehouse found in the
Felix Gumpal Compound, Ipil Junction, Echague,
Isabela;
c. Long bolo approximately 16 inches in length; and
d. Glock 9mm caliber pistol.5
P/Insp. Malixi stressed that he has personally verified

and ascertained the veracity of the information and found
the same to be true and correct, as narrated and sworn to
by Ernesto Villador, a long-time employee of Dimal, Edison
Uy Pua, the nephew of the victims Lucio and Rosemarie
Pua, and Shaira Mae Eugenio, daughter of the victim
Gemma Eugenio. P/Insp. Malixi claimed that the

application was founded on his personal knowledge and
that of his witnesses, acquired after conducting
surveillance and investigation. P/Insp. Malixi attached to
the application as Annexes “A,” “B,” “C” and “D” the
Vicinity/Location and Floor Map.
_______________
5 Id.
71
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 71

Dimal vs. People
After the hearing of the application on October 8, 2010,

Judge Bonifacio T. Ong of the RTC of Ilagan, Isabela,
Branch 17, issued a Search Warrant, which reads:
The undersigned Presiding Judge personally examined in

the form of questions and answers in writing and [under
oath], the applicant Police Senior Inspector Roy Michael S.
Malixi and the witnesses, namely: Edison Pua, Shaira Mae
Eugenio, and Ernesto Villador, who all collaborated to the
fact of death of Lucio Pua, Rosemarie Pua and Gemma
Eugenio in Echague, Isabela. That witness Edison Pua went
to the house of Jaylord Dimal after the commission of the
crime and was able to see the bloodstained clothes of the
victims:
1) Lucio Pua’s clothes; and
2) [Rosemarie] Pua’s clothes;
On the part of Shaira Mae Eugenio, she testified that
before her mother Gemma Eugenio left her house, she wore
faded pink long sleeves jacket and black T-shirt, and
brought with her a shoulder bag and two (2) cell phones
which probably are in the house of Jaylord Dimal. In the
case of Ernesto Villador, he testified that he saw Jaylord
Dimal holding a 9mm caliber pistol and testified that he
usually keep said firearm under the computer table or
drawers. He likewise testify (sic) that there were 1,600
sacks of palay sold by the victims and brought to the Felix

Gumpal Compound.
With the testimony of said witnesses and their
Sinumpaang Salaysay and deposition of witness, it would
readily show that there is probable cause to believe that in
the house, particularly the Felix Gumpal Compound of
Jaylord Dimal located at Ipil Junction, Echague, Isabela,
said items, to wit: bloodstained clothes of the victims, 1,600
sacks of palay inside the warehouse in the Felix Gumpal
Compound and 9mm cal. pistol are found.
The said Application for Search Warrant was filed before
this Court due to compelling reasons for security and
confidentiality purposes, considering that possibility of
leakages of information once the application for search
warrant is filed with the court within the area having
territorial jurisdiction over it.
In view thereof, you are hereby commanded to search at
any time of the day or night the premises of Felix Gumpal
Compound located at Ipil Junction, Echague, Isabela, and
forthwith seize and take possession of the following
properties: bloodstained clothes of
72

Dimal vs. People
Rosemarie Pua, Lucio Pua, and Gemma Eugenio, either to

take the 1,600 sacks of palay or just to photograph the
same, and the 9mm caliber pistol, and to bring the said
articles to the custody of the Provincial Director of Isabela
at the Provincial Police Office of Isabela under custodia
legis, to be dealt with according to law.6
In the Return on the Search Warrant, P/Insp. Gary

Halay-ay Macadangdang, Deputy Chief of Police, Echague
Police Station, Echague, Isabela,” manifested that (1)
Search Warrant No. 10-11 was served at the premises of
Dimal at Barangay Ipil, Echague, Isabela, on October 9,
2010 at about 9:00 a.m., and (2) the search was conducted
in an orderly manner and in the presence of
owner/custodian Carlos Dimal, Barangay Captain
Florencio Miguel, Barangay Kagawads Rodolfo Vergara

and Mariano Seriban, and BOMBO Radyo reporter Romy
Santos. P/Insp. Macadangdang enumerated the items
recovered:
The following articles, subject of the warrant, were found

by the said Office during the search:
a. Extracted suspected Bloodstain (Marked as E-24
with JAM markings)
b. Extracted suspected Bloodstain (Marked as E-25
with JAM markings)
c. One (1) Black T-shirt with suspected bloodstain
(Marked as E-26 with JAM markings)
d. One (1) Black T-shirt with red lining with suspected
bloodstain (Marked as E-15 with JAM markings)
e. One (1) Bra color brown (tiger) (Marked as E-14 with
JAM markings)
f. One (1) cell phone spare part (Marked as E-16 with
JAM markings)
g. One (1) cell phone spare part (Marked as E-17 with
JAM markings)
h. Palay husk with suspected bloodstain (Marked as
E-28 with JAM markings)
i. Suspected bloodstain (Marked as E-25-A with JAM
markings)
The articles recovered/seized in plain view during the
conduct of search are the following:
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 80-81.
73
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 73

Dimal vs. People
a. One (1) pc. torn cloth (Marked as E-1 with JAM

markings)
b. One (1) pc. torn cloth (Marked as E-2 with JAM
markings)
c. One (1) pc. torn cloth (Marked as E-3 with JAM

markings)
d. One (1) pc. spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as
e. One (1) bag pack color black (Marked as E-5 with

JAM markings)
f. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-6 with
JAM markings)
g. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-7 with
JAM markings)
h. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-8 with
JAM markings)
i. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-9 with
JAM markings)
j. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Mark as E-10 with JAM
markings)
k. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-11 with
JAM markings)
l. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-12 with
JAM markings)
m. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-13 with
JAM markings)
n. Two (2) Alien Certificate of Registration of Lucio Pua
and Rosemarie Pua, and One (1) BDO Passbook in the
name of Lucio Pua (Marked as E-15 with JAM markings)
o. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-18 with
JAM markings)
p. One (1) piece gold-plated earring (Marked as E-19
with JAM markings)
q. Suspected human hair (Marked as E-20 with JAM
markings)
r. A piece of embroider[ed] cloth (Marked as E-22 with
JAM markings)
s. Three (3) burned Tire wires (Marked as E-23 with
JAM markings)
t. One (1) empty plastic bottle of Gleam muriatic acid
u. One (1) live ammo of caliber 22 (Marked as E-29 with
JAM markings)
74

Dimal vs. People
v. One (1) color white T-shirt (Marked as E-30 with

JAM markings).7
On February 20, 2012, petitioners Dimal and Castillo,

together with Michael Miranda, filed an Omnibus
Motion8 to quash Search Warrant No. 10-11 and to declare
the seized items as inadmissible in evidence. They argued
that the search warrant is invalid because it was issued in
connection with, not just one single offense, but two
crimes, i.e., kidnapping and multiple murder. They also
contended that except for witness Ernesto Villador,
applicant P/Insp. Malixi and witnesses Edison and Shaira
Mae have no personal knowledge surrounding the two
crimes committed; hence, their statements did not provide
basis for a finding of probable cause, much less for the
issuance of a search warrant. With respect to Villador,
petitioners assert that his sworn statement is incredible
because he is just an ordinary laborer, who is unfamiliar
with the English language, and there is no showing that
the contents of his statement were fully explained to him
by the Judge who issued the search warrant. Petitioners
further posit that the search warrant was invalidly
implemented because the raiding team failed to comply
with Section 8, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court on the
requisite presence of two witnesses during a search of
premises, and with Section 10, Rule 126 on the issuance of
a receipt of seized properties. Finally, petitioners sought
that the items seized which are not covered by the search
warrant, should be declared inadmissible in evidence and
be ordered returned to the accused.
Meanwhile, on November 22, 2010, three (3) criminal
Informations for Kidnapping for Ransom, as defined and
penalized under Article 267, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, were filed against petitioners
before the RTC of Echague, Isabela, Branch 24, and later re-
raffled to the RTC of Ilagan, Isabela, Branch 17. The accusatory
portion of the Informations similarly read, save for the names of
the 3 victims, as follows:
That on or about the 6th day of September 2010, and for

sometime thereafter, in the Municipality of Echague,
Province of Isabela, Philippines and within the jurisdiction

of this Honorable
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 82-83, 136-138.

8 Id., at pp. 84-93.
75
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 75

Dimal vs. People
Court, the accused Jaylord Arizabal Dimas (sic) and Allan Castillo
y Marquez, being the principals therein, conspiring, confederating
together and helping one another, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, kidnap and detain one Lucio Uy Pua
9
(Chinese name: Xinyi Pan) for the purpose of extorting ransom
in the amount of Fifty (50) million pesos, from him and from his
relatives.
That during his[/her] detention, the said accused, in pursuance
of conspiracy, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, assault, attack and shot with a caliber 9mm pistol the
10
said Lucio Uy Pua which had directly caused his death and,
thereafter, chopped his body into several pieces and placed them
into big plastic containers and ice box, and burned his head and
placed the same into a plastic bag, and threw the same on separate
rivers located at Santiago City and at the Province of Quirino.
That the accused Michael Miranda Genova alias Mike Miranda
being an accessory, took part in the subsequent commission of the
crime by providing the vehicle and a container drum used to
11
dispose the chopped body of said Lucio Uy Pua and threw the
same on the river, in order to conceal the body of the crime, to
prevent its discovery.
12
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Pursuant to Administrative Matter No. 12-1-18-RTC,

the criminal cases were re-raffled to Judge Aurora A.
Hernandez-Calledo of the RTC of Quezon City, and re-
docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-12-175369, Q-12-175370
to Q-12-175371.
In an Order13 dated September 28, 2012, the RTC of

Quezon City denied the Motion to Quash Search Warrant
No. 10-11 for lack of merit. The RTC ruled that a perusal of
the application for search warrant reveals that it was
issued by the RTC of Hagan, Isabela, after conducting
searching and probing questions upon the persons of the
applicant P/Insp. Malixi, and his witnesses Edison, Shaira
Mae and
_______________
9 The names of the 2 victims in the other Informations are Rosemarie

P. Pua (Chinese name: Juhua Pan) and Gemma Eugenio y Estrada.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Rollo, pp. 126-129. (Emphasis ours)
13 Id., at pp. 94-102.
76

Dimal vs. People
more particularly Villador, and finding probable cause based on

their personal knowledge. In rejecting the claim of
unreasonableness of the implementation of the search warrant,
the RTC noted that the records show that the owner/custodian of
the property subject of the warrant by the name of Carlos Dimal,
was present, together with the Barangay Captain, two Barangay
Kagawads, and a reporter from Bombo Radyo.
Considering that no complaint was filed regarding the
implementation of the search warrant, and that a Certification of
Orderly Search was issued by the barangay officials, the RTC
declared that the presumption of regularity in the performance of
public duty was not sufficiently contradicted. Anent the claim
that the search warrant was not issued in connection with a
single offense but with the crimes of Kidnapping and Murder, the
RTC said that the nature of the case and the circumstances at the
time the search warrant was applied for, justify the issuance of
such warrant as the two offenses are allied or closely related to
each other because it was reported to the applicant that the
victims were kidnapped for ransom and murdered. Finally, the
RTC stressed that the claim that no return on the search warrant
was submitted must fail because such a return was issued by the
executing officer, and was marked as Exhibit “4” for the
prosecution during the preliminary conference.
With the RTC’s denial of their motion for
reconsideration, petitioners filed a petition
for certiorari before the CA.
In a Decision14 dated August 27, 2014, the CA dismissed
the petition and ruled that the subject search warrant was
validly issued, thus:
A perusal of the records show that Judge Ong, through

searching and probing questions, personally examined the
(sic) P/lnsp. Malixi and the witnesses, Edison Uy, Ernesto
Villador and Shaira Mae Eugenio, on 8 October 2010. The
questions that Judge Ong propounded were sufficiently
probing, not at all superficial and perfunctory. The facts
narrated by the witnesses while under oath, when they
were asked by the examining judge, were sufficient
justification for the issuance of the subject search warrant.
_______________
14 Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, with Associate

Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Mario V. Lopez, concurring; Id., at pp. 44-
50.
77
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 77

Dimal vs. People
Furthermore, the subject search warrant specifically

designated or described Felix Gumpal Compound, located at
Ipil Junction, Echague, Isabela as the place to be searched
and enumerated the articles to be seized.
Petitioners[’] contention that the subject search warrant
which was issued in connection with two (2) separate
offenses, Kidnapping and Murder, as indicated therein,
cannot stand. However, as aptly pointed out by the People
through the Office of the Solicitor General, the crimes of
kidnapping and murder are interrelated and points to the
commission of a single complex crime known as kidnapping

with murder. They cannot be treated as separate crimes.15
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the

CA denied in a Resolution dated February 4, 2015. Hence,
this petition for review on certiorari.
Issues
Petitioners argue that the CA gravely erred in failing to

pass upon petitioners’ allegations (1) that the search
warrant is void and its quashal imperative; and (2) that the
items seized on the basis of the void search warrant are
inadmissible in evidence. They contend that the search
warrant was null and void because it was issued in
connection with two unrelated offenses, without a finding
of probable cause, and without specifying the place to be
searched and the items to be seized.
Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious. Search Warrant No.

10-11 was validly issued, but most of the items seized
pursuant thereto are inadmissible in evidence, as they
were neither particularly described in the warrant nor
seized under the “plain view doctrine.”
At the outset, there is no merit to petitioners’ contention
that the search warrant was applied for in connection with
two unrelated offenses, i.e., kidnapping and murder, in
violation of Section 4, Rule
_______________
15 Id., at pp. 49-50.
78

Dimal vs. People
126 of the Rules of Court which requires that such warrant must
be issued in relation to one offense.
Suffice it to state that where a person kidnapped is

killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, there is
only one special complex crime for which the last
paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code
provides the maximum penalty that shall be imposed, i.e.,
death.16 In People v. Larrañaga,17 the Court explained that
this provision gives rise to a special complex crime:
This amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the

concept of “special complex crime” of kidnapping with
murder or homicide. It effectively eliminated the distinction
drawn by the courts between those cases where the killing
of the kidnapped victim was purposely sought by the
accused, and those where the killing of the victim was not
deliberately resorted to but was merely an afterthought
Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person
kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention,
regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or
was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder
or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art.
48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be
punished as a special complex crime under the last
paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
xxxx
x x x Where the law provides a single penalty for
two or more component offenses, the resulting crime
is called a special complex crime. Some of the special
complex crimes under the Revised Penal Code are (1)
robbery with homicide, (2) robbery with rape, (3)
kidnapping with serious physical injuries, (4) kidnapping
with murder or homicide, and (5) rape with homicide. In a
special complex crime, the prosecution must necessarily
prove each of the component offenses with the same precision
_______________
16 With the enactment of R.A. No. 9346, entitled “AN ACT

PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE
PHILIPPINES,” which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, such
penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
17 466 Phil. 324, 384-385; 421 SCRA 530, 578-579 (2004), citing People
v. Ramos, 357 Phil. 559; 297 SCRA 618 (1998); and People v. Mercado, 400
Phil. 37; 346 SCRA 256 (2000).
79
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 79

Dimal vs. People
that would be necessary if they were made the subject of separate

complaints. As earlier mentioned, R.A. No. 7659 amended Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code by adding thereto this provision:
“When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention,
or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed; and that this provision gives
18
rise to a special complex crime.”
There is no dispute that Search Warrant No. 10-11 was

applied for and issued in connection with the crime of
kidnapping with murder. Asked by Judge Ong during the
hearing as to what particular offense was committed,
search warrant applicant P/Insp. Malixi testified that
Dimal “allegedly committed the crime of kidnapping and
multiple murder of Lucio and Rosemarie Pua and one
Gemma Eugenio on September 6, 2010.”19 It is not amiss to
add that a search warrant that covers several counts of a
certain specific offense does not violate the one-specific-
offense rule.20
Neither can petitioners validly claim that the examining
judge failed to ask searching questions, and to consider
that the testimonies of the applicant and his witnesses
were based entirely on hearsay, as they have no personal
knowledge of the circumstances relating to the supposed
disappearance or murder of the 3 victims.
The Court explained in Del Castillo v. People21 the
concept of probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant:
x x x Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as such

facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the objects sought in connection
with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. A
finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence
showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been
committed and that it was committed by the accused.
Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it
requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.
The judge, in determining
_______________
18 Id., at pp. 385-387; pp. 579-581. (Italics in the original; emphasis

added; citations omitted)
19 Rollo, p. 59.
20 Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 875, 928; 261
SCRA 144, 185-186 (1996).
21 680 Phil. 447, 457-458; 664 SCRA 430, 438-439 (2012).
80

Dimal vs. People
probable cause, is to consider the totality of the

circumstances made known to him and not by a fixed and
rigid formula, and must employ a flexible totality of the
circumstances standard. The existence depends to a large
degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting
the examination. This Court, therefore, is in no position to
disturb the factual findings of the judge which led to the
issuance of the search warrant. A magistrate’s
determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court, as
long as there was substantial basis for that determination.
Substantial basis means that the questions of the
examining judge brought out 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.
Corollarily, the Court said in Oebanda v. People22 that in

an application for search warrant, the mandate of the judge
is for him to conduct a full and searching examination of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. “The
searching questions propounded to the applicant and the
witnesses must depend on a large extent upon the
discretion of the judge. Although there is no hard-and-fast
rule as to how a judge may conduct his examination, it is
axiomatic that the said examination must be probing and

perfunctory. He must make his own inquiry on the intent
and factual and legal justifications for a search warrant.
The questions should not merely be repetitious of the
averments stated in the affidavits/deposition of the
applicant and the witnesses.”23
Having in mind the foregoing principles, the Court
agrees with the RTC and the CA in both ruling that Judge
Ong found probable cause to issue a search warrant after a
searching and probing personal examination of applicant
P/Insp. Malixi and his witnesses, Edison, Shaira Mae and
Villador. Their testimonies jointly and collectively show a
reasonable ground to believe that the 3 victims went to
Dimal’s compound to sell palay, but were probably killed by
Dimal, and that they may have left personal belongings
within its premises.
_______________
22 G.R. No. 208137, June 8, 2016, 792 SCRA 623.

23 Id., at pp. 631-632.
81
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 81

Dimal vs. People
During the hearing of his application for search warrant,

Judge Ong was able to elicit from P/Insp. Malixi the
specific crime allegedly committed by Dimal, the particular
place to be searched and items to be seized:
[COURT:]
Q: And in your application for Search Warrant, what particular place
are you going to search in this Search Warrant if ever it will
be granted?
[P/INSP. MALIXI:]
A: According to the Opponent we are applying to search the Palay
Buying Station of Jaylord Dimallocated at Felix Gumpal
Compound, Ipil, Echague, Isabela, and also to search the
back portion of a vacant lot within the Felix Gumpal
Compound, Your Honor.
Q: The particular place is Felix Gumpal Compound, in Echague,

Isabela, no more?
A: No more, Your Honor.
Q: And what particular offense have this Jaylord Dimal
committed, if any?
A: He allegedly committed the crime of kidnapping and multiple
murder of Lucio and Rosemarie Pua and one Gemma
Eugenio on September 6, 2010, Your Honor.
Q: And what particular items are you going to search in that
compound of Felix Gumpal?
A: Subject of the offense, the personal belongings of the victims when
they went to the Felix Gumpal Compound, where they were
reportedly murdered, Your Honor.
Q: What specific items are you going to search from that place?
A: Personal belongings such as Driver’s License of Lucio Pua,
Alien Certificate of Registration ID of Lucio Pua and
Rosemarie Pua, ATM Cards such as BDO under Lucio Pua’s
account, Deposit slips of BDO accounts of Lucio Pua,
receipts of the palay delivered, blood-stained clothes of the
victims, such as Rosemarie Pua’s green inner garment with
black blazer and brownish pedal pants, Lucio Pua’s black
short and pink polo shirt, Gemma Eugenio’s maong pants,
faded pink long sleeves jacket, black stripe T-shirt and a
shoulder bag of the victim Gemma Eugenio color
82

Dimal vs. People
white, the 1,600 sacks of palay inside the Warehouse of Felix

Gumpal Compound, long bolo [which] is approximately 16
inches long, and the 9mm caliber black pistol, your Honor.
Q: Where did you get this information regarding the articles found in
the Felix Gumpal Compound?
A: This information was given to me by the Opponents, Your Honor.
Q: And who are they?
A: They are Edison Uy Pua, Ernesto Villador y Yakapin and Shaira
Eugenio y Estrada, Your Honor.
Q: How sure are you that these people were able to see these items in
Felix Gumpal Compound?
A: Edison Uy Pua and Shaira Mae Eugenio are the relatives of the
victims who personally saw the victim’s clothes they were wearing
right before they went to Jaylord’s compound and the victims were
seen by Ernesto Villador sprawled lifeless on the floor in the palay
buying station of Jaylord Dimal, Your Honor.
Q: You said that there is a gun 9mm pistol, how did they come to know
that there was a gun in that place?
A: It was reported to me by Ernesto Villador, Your Honor.24
Judge Ong was also able to draw corroborative

testimonies from P/Insp. Malixi’s witnesses. Edison
testified on the circumstances prior to the disappearance of
his uncle Lucio and his aunties Rosemarie and Gemma,
while Shaira Mae described the clothes and personal
belongings of her mother before the latter disappeared,
thus:
[COURT]
Q: On September 6, 2010, where were you?
[EDISON]
A: I was at home, Your Honor.
Q: Where?
A: At Antonino, Alicia, Isabela, Your Honor?
Q: Where is Lucio and Rosemarie Pua on that day?
_______________
24 Rollo, pp. 58-61. (Emphasis added)
83
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 83

Dimal vs. People
A: They went to Jaylord to collect the payment of the palay, Your

Honor.
Q: And you were left in your house in Alicia when your Uncle Lucio and
Auntie Rosemarie when they went to Jaylord to collect payment of
palay?
A: Yes, Your Honor, I was.
Q: And do you know what happened to your Uncle Lucio and
Auntie Rosemarie when they went to Jaylord’s place?
A: I know because when they went to collect payments they did

not come back anymore, Your Honor.
Q: And what did you do when you learned that they did not
come back anymore?
A: They were already dead and their bodies were chopped into
pieces, your Honor.
Q: And what did you do when you learned that they were
already dead and chopped into pieces?
A: We went to look for the pieces of the bodies because they said
it was thrown to the river, Your Honor.
Q: And what did you do after that?
A: We went to the house of Jaylord, Your Honor.
Q: And what did you do in the house of Jaylord?
A: We saw the T-shirt of my Uncle Lucio Pua and Ate Gemma,
Your Honor.
Q: Who is that Gemma?
A: My aunt, the one who canvass palay, your Honor.
Q: What did you see in the house of Jaylord?
A: Polo shirt and Jacket of Auntie Gemma, Your Honor.
Q: What else aside from the Polo shirt and jacket did you see?
A: No more your Honor, we went back to Alicia.
Q: Who were with you when you went to the house of Jaylord?
A: My cousin, Your Honor.
Q: What is the name of your cousin?
A: Harison, Your Honor.
Q: When was that when you went to the house of Dimal?
84

Dimal vs. People
A: October 5, 2010, Your Honor.25

xxxx
[COURT]
Q: On September 6, 2010, in the afternoon, at about 4:00 o’clock, do you
know where was (sic) your mother then?
[SHAIRA MAE]
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where?
A: She [Gemma] went to Jaylord Dimal, Your Honor.
Q: Do you remember what was (sic) the clothes of your mother

and what did she brought (sic) with her when she went to
Jaylord Dimal?
A: Yes, Your Honor, the long sleeves is faded pink, the inner
shirt is black, and bag is pink, inside it are two (2) cell
phones, the picture of my sister and her Driver’s License.26
While it may be noted that applicant P/Insp. Malixi and

his witnesses Shaira Mae and Edison have no personal
knowledge how the crimes of kidnapping and multiple
murder were committed, their testimonies corroborated
that of Villador, who petitioners admitted to have known
about the incidents surrounding the commission of such
crimes.27
Significantly, Judge Ong’s inquiry underscored that
Villador has a reasonable ground to believe that a crime
has been committed at the Felix Gumpal Compound on
September 6, 2010. In reply to the queries of Judge Ong,
Villador revealed that (1) when Dimal called him inside the
house to receive his payment as classifier of palay, he saw
them [Lucio, Rosemarie and Gemma] talking to each other;
and (2) later in the day, Dimal called him to ask for help,
but he backed out upon seeing that Dimal was holding a
black 0.9mm pistol amidst people lying bloody on the
ground. Thus:
_______________
25 Id., at pp. 63-66. (Emphasis added)

26 Id., at p. 69. (Emphasis added)
27 Id., at p. 125. Motion for Reconsideration dated October 16, 2012, p.
17.
85
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 85

Dimal vs. People
[COURT:]
Q: You said you are a classifier, what is the work of a classifier?
[VILLADOR]
A: We classify the kinds of palay, Your Honor.

Q: Where are you working as a classifier?
A: Jaylord Dimal, Your Honor.
Q: And where is the place of the business of Jaylord Dimal?
A: Junction Ipil at the former compound of Felix Gumpal, Your Honor.
Q: How long have you been a classifier of Jaylord Dimal?
A: It is already two (2) years that every cropping he calls for me to
classify, Your Honor.
Q: On September 6, 2010, are (sic) you still a classifier in the business of
Jaylord Dimal.
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Where were you on that date?
A: In the compound of Jaylord, Your Honor.
Q: In the afternoon of that date, do you know of any person who went to
the place of businessman Dimal?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Who are they?
A: Lucio, Rosemarie and Gemma, Your Honor.
xxxx
Q: Do you know their purpose of going to the place of Jaylord Dimal?
A: They were supposed to collect payment of the palay that Jaylord
asked me to gather, Your Honor?
Q: And where are those palay that Jaylord asked you to gather?
A: I was the one discarding the sacks of palay in the bodega of Jaylord,
Your Honor.
Q: Who owns these palay that you are discarding?
A: Owned by Lucio and Rosemarie Pua, Your Honor.
Q: And why were they taken to the place of Jaylord Dimal?
86

Dimal vs. People
A: They asked me to classify those palay and by agreement of Jaylord

and the Pua’s I discarded the palay in the bodega of Jaylord, Your
Honor.
Q: Do you know how many cavans?
xxxx
A: 1,600 sacks, Your Honor.
Q: And where are they now those sacks of palay?
A: They are in the bodega or warehouse, Your Honor.
Q: Are those sacks of palay still there up to now?

A: Yes, Your Honor, they are still there.
Q: What happened in the afternoon of September 6, 2010 when
Lucio and Rosemarie and Gemma was (sic) there in the
house or place of Jaylord Dimal?
A: Jaylord Dimal went out from his house and he called for the
three and went inside the house, Your Honor.
Q: And do you know what happened when they were inside the
house?
A: Jaylord called for me inside the house when I received my
payment as classifier and I saw them talking to each other,
Your Honor.
Q: What happened next, if any?
A: Jaylord called me up but I was already in our house and I
was busy giving wages to my laborers, when he summoned
me to go to his house, “Kuya punta ka sandali dito,”
meaning “Kuya, please come here for a while.”
Q: And did you go to the place of Jaylord?
A: Yes, Your Honor, I rode my motorcycle and went to the place.
Q: And what happened next?
A: When I arrived at the gate he asked me to enter the
compound with my motorcycle, Your Honor.
Q: What happened next?
A: I asked him, “Bakit Boss?” meaning, “Why, Boss?”
Q: What happened next?
87
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 87

Dimal vs. People
A: He answered, “Kuya yung mga tao patay na baka pwedeng

patulong.” Meaning Kuya the people are already dead
please help?
Q: What did you see from Jaylord [Dimal] when he told you the
people were already dead?
A: I saw him holding a black 9mm pistol and when I saw the
people lying bloody on the ground, I told him “Sir, hindi ko
kaya,” meaning “I cannot do it.
Q: How many times have you seen that gun which he was
holding on that day September 6, 2010?
A: That night when he called for me, Your Honor.
Q: After the September 6, 2010 incident, have you went (sic)

back to the place of Dimal.
A: No more, Your Honor.
Q: What are the things did you see (sic) when Dimal called for
you and told you that these persons were already dead?
A: I saw these people lying on the ground bloody and they are
already dead and I said, “hindi ko kaya,” meaning “I cannot
do it” and he replied, “Sige sibat kana,” meaning “okay, just
go.”
Q: So, it is (sic) still possible that the gun held by Dimal is still in his
house?
A: I think so that is still in his house because he keep (sic) it in one
place, Your Honor.
Q: And you said he keep (sic) it in one place are you familiar where he is
keeping it?
A: What I usually see, he placed it under the table where the laptop is
and there drawers in it, Your Honor.28 (Emphasis ours)
Records clearly show that Judge Ong personally

examined under oath applicant P/lnsp. Malixi and his
witnesses, Edwin, Shaira Mae and Villador, whose
collective testimonies would prompt a reasonably discreet
person to believe that the crime of kidnapping with murder
was committed at the Felix Gumpal Compound on
September 6, 2010,
_______________
28 Id., at pp. 71-78. (Emphasis ours)
88

Dimal vs. People
and that specific personal properties sought in connection

with the crime could be found in the said place sought to be
searched.
As to petitioners’ claim that the judge did not ask
anymore searching questions after statements were made
by Villador,29 the Court finds that searching and probing
questions were indeed propounded by Judge Ong, and that
there is no more necessity to ask Villador to describe the

position and state of the lifeless bodies, and the specific
place in the compound where the bodies were lying.
Villador could not have been expected to take a closer look
into the bloody bodies on the ground because Dimal was
then holding a pistol, and told him to leave if he cannot
help. Petitioners would do well to bear in mind that, absent
a showing to the contrary, it is presumed that a judicial
function has been regularly performed.30 The judge has the
prerogative to give his own judgment on the application of
the search warrant by his own evaluation of the evidence
presented before him.31 The Court cannot substitute its
own judgment to that of the judge, unless the latter
disregarded facts before him/her or ignored the clear
dictates of reason.32
Petitioners submit that the search warrant is also void
for failing to identify with particularity the place to be
searched and the items to be seized. They assert that Felix
Gumpal Compound consists of a very large area, consisting
of two houses, one nipa hut, two external bathrooms, one
garage, one warehouse utilized as a palay depot, and one
warehouse utilized to store a palay drying machinery. They
likewise claim that all the items actually seized were either
not among those listed in the warrant or were seized in
violation of the “plain view doctrine.” Insisting that the
search warrant was procured in violation of the
Constitution and the Rules of Court, petitioners posit that
all the items seized in Dimal’s compound are “fruits of the
poisonous tree” and inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
Contrary to petitioners’ submission, the search warrant
issued by Judge Ong identified with particularity the place
to be searched,
_______________
29 Id., at p. 120. Motion for Reconsideration October 16, 2012, p. 18.

30 Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court.
31 Oebanda v. People, supra note 22 at p. 642.
32 Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., 481 Phil. 550, 563; 438
SCRA 224, 238 (2004).
89
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 89

Dimal vs. People
namely: (1) the house of Jaylord Dimal; and (2) the palay
warehouse in the premises of the Felix Gumpal Compound at Ipil
Junction, Echague, Isabela. This is evident from the Search
Warrant issued by the judge, which reads:
The undersigned Presiding Judge personally examined in

the form of questions and answers in writing and under
oath, the applicant Police Senior Inspector Roy Michael S.
Malixi and the witnesses, namely: Edison Pua, Shaira Mae
Eugenio, and Ernesto Villador, who all collaborated to the
fact of death of Lucio Pua, Rosemarie Pua and Gemma
Eugenio in Echague, Isabela. That witness Edison Pua went
to the house of Jaylord Dimal after the commission of the
crime and was able to see the bloodstained clothes of the
victims:
1) Lucio Pua’s clothes; and
2) [Rosemarie] Pua’s clothes.
On the part of Shaira Mae Eugenio, she testified that
before her mother Gemma Eugenio left her house, she wore
faded pink long sleeves jacket and black T-shirt, and
brought with her a shoulder bag and two (2) cell phones
which are probably in the house of Jaylord Dimal. In the
case of Ernesto Villador, he testified that he saw Jaylord
Dimal holding a 9mm caliber pistol and testified that he
usually keep said firearm under the computer table or
drawers. He likewise testify (sic) that there were 1600 sacks
of palay sold by the victims and brought to the Felix
Gumpal Compound.
With the testimony of said witnesses and their
Sinumpaang Salaysay and deposition of witness, it would
readily show that there is probable cause to believe that in
the house, particularly the Felix Gumpal Compound
of Jaylord Dimal located at Ipil Junction, Echague, Isabela,
said items, to wit: bloodstained clothes of the victims, 1600 sacks of
palay inside the warehouse in the Felix Gumpal Compound
and 9mm cal. pistol are found.
The said Application for Search Warrant was filed before
this Court due to compelling reasons for security and
confidentiality purposes, considering that possibility of
leakages of information once the application for search
warrant is filed with the court within the area having
territorial jurisdiction over it.
In view thereof, you are hereby commanded to search at

any time of the day or night the premises of Felix
Gumpal Com-
90

Dimal vs. People
pound located at Ipil Junction, Echague, Isabela, and

forthwith seize and take possession of the following
properties: bloodstained clothes of Rosemarie Pua, Lucio
Pua, and Gemma Eugenio, either to take the 1,600 sacks of
palay or just photograph the same, and the 9mm caliber
pistol, and to bring the said articles to the custody of the
Provincial Director of Isabela at the Provincial Police Office
of Isabela under custodia legis, to be dealt with according to
law.33
A description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the

officer with the warrant can ascertain and identify with
reasonable effort the place intended, and distinguish it
from other places in the community.34 A designation that
points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all
others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to
it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of
35
definiteness. To the Court’s view, the above quoted search
warrant sufficiently describes the place to be searched with
manifest intention that the search be confined strictly to
the place described. At any rate, petitioners cannot be
heard to decry irregularity in the conduct of the search of
the premises of the Felix Gumpal Compound because, as
aptly ruled by the RTC, a Certification of Orderly Search
was issued by the barangay officials, and the presumption
of regularity in the performance of public duty was not
sufficiently contradicted by petitioners.
Moreover, the objection as to the particularity of the place to
be searched was belatedly raised in petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration of the Order denying their Omnibus Motion to
quash. The Court has consistently ruled that the omnibus motion
36
rule under Section 8, Rule 15 is applicable to motion to quash
37
search warrants. In
_______________
33 Rollo, pp. 80-81. (Emphasis and underscoring added on the

particular place to be searched and things to seized, respectively)
34 Laud v. People, 747 Phil. 503, 522-523; 741 SCRA 239, 258 (2014).
35 Del Castillo v. People, supra note 21 at p. 458; pp. 439-440.
36 Section 8. Omnibus Motion.—Subject to the provisions of Section
1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment or proceeding
shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so
included shall be deemed waived.
37 Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Romars International
Gases Corporation, 153 Phil. 707, 716; 750 SCRA 547, 555-556 (2015).
91
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 91

Dimal vs. People
Abuan v. People,38 it was held that “the motion to quash

the search warrant which the accused may file shall be
governed by the omnibus motion rule, Provided, however,
That objections not available, existent or known during the
proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in
the hearing of the motion to suppress.” Accordingly, the
trial court could only take cognizance of an issue that was
not raised in a motion to quash if (1) said issue was not
available or existent when they filed the motion to quash
the search warrant; or (2) the issue was one involving
jurisdiction over the subject matter.39 Because petitioners’
objection as to the particularity of the place to be searched
was available when they filed their omnibus motion to
quash, and there being no jurisdictional issue raised, their
objection is deemed waived.
Meanwhile, a search warrant may be said to particularly
describe the things to be seized (1) when the description therein is
as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; or (2) when
the description expresses a conclusion of fact — not of law by
which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search
and seizure; and (3) when the things to be described are limited to
those which bear direct relation to the offenses for which the
40
warrant is being issued. The purpose for this requirement is to
limit the articles to be seized only to those particularly described
in the search warrant in order to leave the officers of the law with
no discretion regarding what items they shall seize, to the end
41
that no unreasonable searches and seizures will be committed.
In Vallejo v. Court of Appeals,42 the Court clarified that
technical precision of description is not required. “It is only
necessary that there be reasonable particularity and
certainty as to the identity of the property to be searched
for and seized, so that the warrant shall not be a mere
roving commission. Indeed, the law does not require that
the things to be seized must be described in precise and
minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of
the searching au-
_______________
38 536 Phil. 672, 692; 505 SCRA 799, 816 (2006).

39 Supra note 37.
40 Laud v. People, supra note 34 at p. 525; pp. 260-261, citing Bache &
Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Ruiz, 147 Phil. 794, 811; 37 SCRA 823, 835-836 (1971).
41 Supra note 32 at pp. 568-569; pp. 238-239.
42 471 Phil. 670; 427 SCRA 658 (2004).
92

Dimal vs. People
thorities. If this were the rule, it would be virtually

impossible for the applicants to obtain a warrant as they
would not know exactly what kind of things to look for.”43
Under American jurisprudence which has persuasive
effect in this jurisdiction, the degree of specificity required
in a search warrant’s description of the items to be
searched for and seized is flexible and will vary depending
on the crime involved and the types of items sought.44 A
description is said to be valid if it is as specific as the
circumstances and the nature of the activity under
investigation will permit. But if the circumstances make an
exact description of the property to be seized a virtual
impossibility, the searching officer can only be expected to
describe the generic class of the items sought. The practical
guide to determine whether a specific search warrant
meets the particularity requirement is for the court to

inquire if the officer reading the description in the warrant
would reasonably know what items to be seized.45
In Search Warrant No. 10-11, only two things were
particularly described and sought to be seized in connection
with the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder,
namely: (1) bloodstained clothes of Gemma Eugenio
consisting of a faded pink long sleeves jacket and a black t-
shirt, and (2) a 0.9mm caliber pistol. Having no direct
relation to the said crime, the 1,600 sacks of palay that
were supposedly sold by the victims to Dimal and found in
his warehouse, cannot be a proper subject of a search
warrant because they do not fall under the personal
properties stated under Section 3 of Rule 126, to wit: (a)
subject of the offense; (b) stolen or embezzled and other
proceeds or fruits of the offense; or (c) those used or
intended to be used as the means of committing an offense,
can be the proper subject of a search warrant.
In fine, the CA committed no reversible error in
upholding the denial of the Omnibus Motion to quash
because all the Constitutional46
_______________
43 Id., at p. 687; p. 670.

44 68 Am Jur 2d, §222 (2000).
45 Id.
46 Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution: The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be invio-
93
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 93

Dimal vs. People
47
and procedural requisites for the issuance of a search warrant
are still present, namely: (1) probable cause; (2) such probable
cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge
must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the
complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the
applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known

to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be
48
searched and the things to be seized.
Despite the fact that the issuance of Search Warrant No.
10-11 is valid, petitioners are correct that most items listed
in the Return on the Search Warrant are inadmissible in
evidence. Since only 2 items were particularly described on
the face of the search warrant, namely: (1) the bloodstained
clothes of Gemma Eugenio consisting of faded pink long
sleeves jacket and black T-shirt; and (2) the 0.9mm caliber
pistol, the Court declares that only two articles under the
Return on the Search Warrant are admissible in evidence
as they could be the bloodstained clothes of Gemma subject
of the warrant:
c. One (1) Black T-shirt with suspected bloodstain

_______________
lable, and no such search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place be searched and the persons
or things to be seized.
47 Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: Sec. 4.
Requisites for issuing search warrant.—A search warrant shall not issue
except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the 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.
Sec. 5. Examination of complainant; record.—The judge must, before
issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and
attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits
submitted.
48 Del Castillo v. People, supra note 21 at p. 456; pp. 438-439; People v.
Castillo, Sr., G.R. No. 204419, November 7, 2016, 807 SCRA 77, 87-88.
94

Dimal vs. People
d. One (1) Black T-shirt with red lining with suspected

bloodstain (Marked as E-15 with JAM markings)
It bears stressing that the application for search

warrant particularly described the victims’ bloodstained
clothes as follows: (1) Rosemarie Pua’s green inner garment
with black blazer and brownish pedal pants; (2) Lucio Pua’s
black shorts and pink polo shirt; and (3) Gemma Eugenio’s
maong pants, faded pink long sleeves jacket, and black
striped T-shirt. Considering that only Gemma’s clothes
were described in Search Warrant No. 10-11 as specific as
the circumstances will allow, the Court is constrained to
hold as inadequately described the bloodstained clothes of
Lucio and Rosemarie. Without the aid of the applicant’s
witnesses who are familiar with the victims’ personal
belongings, any other warrant officer, like P/Insp.
Macadangdang who served the search warrant, will surely
be unable to identify the bloodstained clothes of Lucio and
Rosemarie by sheer reliance on the face of such warrant.
The Court could have rendered a favorable ruling if the
application for search warrant and supporting affidavits
were incorporated by reference in Search Warrant No. 10-
11, so as to enable the warrant officer to identify the
specific clothes sought to be searched. This is because
under American jurisprudence, an otherwise overbroad
warrant will comply with the particularity requirement
when the affidavit filed in support of the warrant is
physically attached to it, and the warrant expressly refers
to the affidavit and incorporates it with suitable words of
reference. Conversely, a warrant which lacks any
description of the items to be seized is defective and is not
cured by a description in the warrant application which is
not referenced in the warrant and not provided to the
subject of the search.49
The Court further declares that the following items are
inadmissible as they do not bear any direct relation to the 3
items particularly described in Search Warrant No. 10-11:
a. Extracted suspected Bloodstain (Marked as E-24

with JAM markings)
b. Extracted suspected Bloodstain (Marked as E-25

with JAM markings)
_______________
49 68 Am Jur 2d §223 Searches and Seizures (2000).
95
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 95

Dimal vs. People
xxxx
e. One (1) Bra color brown (tiger) (Marked as E-14 with
JAM markings)
f. One (1) cell phone spare part (Marked as E-16 with
JAM markings)
g. One (1) cell phone spare part (Marked as E-17 with
JAM markings)
h. Palay husk with suspected bloodstain (Marked as
i. Suspected bloodstain (Marked as E-25-A with JAM
markings)
With respect to the items under Return on the Search

Warrant indicated as “articles recovered/seized in plain
view during the conduct of the search,” it is well-settled
that objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a
right to be in a position to have that view are subject to
seizure even without a search warrant and may be
introduced in evidence.50
For the “plain view doctrine” to apply, it is required that
the following requisites are present: (a) the law
enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which
he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence
in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately
apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be
evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to
seizure.51 As explained in People v. Salanguit:52
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
across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The
doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification —
whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit,
search incident to a lawful arrest, or some other legitimate
reason for being present unconnected with a search directed
against the accused — and permits the war-
_______________
50 Miclat, Jr. v. People, 672 Phil. 191, 206; 656 SCRA 539, 552-553
(2011).
51 Id.
52 408 Phil. 817, 834; 356 SCRA 683, 700 (2001), citing Coolidge v.
New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 433, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971).
96

Dimal vs. People
rantless 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 another until
something incriminating at last emerges.
The first requisite of the “plain view doctrine” is present

in this case because the seizing officer, P/Insp.
Macadangdang, has a prior justification for an intrusion
into the premises of the Felix Gumpal Compound, for he
had to conduct the search pursuant to a valid warrant.
However, the second and third requisites are absent, as
there is nothing in the records to prove that the other items
not particularly described in the search warrant were open
to eye and hand, and that their discovery was
unintentional.
In fact, out of the 2 items particularly described in the

search warrant, only the 2 black T-shirts with suspected
bloodstain possibly belonging to Gemma were retrieved,
but the 9mm caliber pistol was not found. It is also not
clear in this case at what instance were the items
supposedly seized in plain view were confiscated in relation
to the seizure of Gemma’s bloodstained clothes — whether
prior to, contemporaneous with or subsequent to such
seizure. Bearing in mind that 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 items subsequently found,53 the Court rules that the
recovery of the items seized in plain view, which could have
been made after the seizure of Gemma’s clothes, are
invalid.
It is also not immediately apparent to the officer that,
except for the Alien Certificates of Registration of Lucio
and Rosemarie, the BDO Passbook in the name of Lucio,
and the live ammo of caliber 22 (marked as E-29 with JAM
markings), the following items may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure:
a. One (1) pc. torn cloth (Marked as E-1 with JAM

markings)
b. One (1) pc. torn cloth (Marked as E-2 with JAM
markings)
c. One (1) pc. torn cloth (Marked as E-3 with JAM
markings)
d. One (1) pc. spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-4 with
JAM markings)
_______________
53 People v. Salanguit, id.
97
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 97

Dimal vs. People
e. One (1) bag pack color black (Marked as E-5 with JAM
markings)
f. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-6 with JAM

markings)
g. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-7 with JAM
markings)
h. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-8 with JAM
markings)
i. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-9 with JAM
markings)
j. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-10 with JAM
markings)
k. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-11 with JAM
markings)
l. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-12 with JAM
markings)
m. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-13 with
JAM markings)
xxxx
o. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-18 with JAM
markings)
p. One (1) piece gold-plated earring (Marked as E-19 with
JAM markings)
q. Suspected human hair (Marked as E-20 with JAM
markings)
r. A piece of embroider[ed] cloth (Marked as E-22 with
JAM markings)
s. Three (3) burned Tire wires (Marked as E-23 with JAM
markings)
t. One (1) empty plastic bottle of Gleam muriatic acid
xxxx
v. One (1) color white T-shirt (Marked as E-30 with JAM
markings)
It bears emphasis that the “immediately apparent” test

does not require an unduly high degree of certainty as to
the incriminating character of the evidence, but only that
the seizure be presumptively reasonable, assuming that
there is a probable cause to associate the property with a
criminal activity.54 In view thereof, the 10 pieces of spent
shell of calibre 0.22 ammo cannot be admitted in evidence
because they can hardly be used in a 9mm caliber pistol
specified in the search warrant, and possession of such
spent shells are not illegal per se. Likewise, the following
items supposedly seized under plain view cannot be
admitted because possession thereof is not inherently

unlawful: (a) 3 torn cloths; (b) black bag pack; (c) a piece of
gold-plated earring; (d) a suspected human hair; (e) a piece
of embroidered cloth; (f) 3 burned tire wires; (g) empty
plastic of muriatic acid; and (h) white T-shirt.
_______________
54 United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip, 500 Phil. 342, 363; 461 SCRA 574,
597 (2005).
98

Dimal vs. People
Notwithstanding the inadmissibility in evidence of the

items listed above, the Court sustains the validity of
Search Warrant No. 10-11 and the admissibility of the
items seized which were particularly described in the
warrant. This is in line with the principles under American
jurisprudence: (1) that the seizure of goods not described in
the warrant does not render the whole seizure illegal, and
the seizure is illegal only as to those things which was
unlawful to seize; and (2) the fact that the officers, after
making a legal search and seizure under the warrant,
illegally made a search and seizure of other property not
within the warrant does not invalidate the first search and
seizure.55 To be sure, a search warrant is not a sweeping
authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a
fishing expedition to confiscate any and all kinds of
evidence or articles relating to a crime.56 Objects taken
which were not specified in the search warrant should be
restored57 to the person from whom they were unlawfully
seized.
Although the Alien Certificates of Registration of Lucio
and Rosemarie and the BDO Passbook in the name of Lucio
are inadmissible in evidence, for not having been seized in
accordance with the “plain view doctrine,” these personal
belongings should be returned to the heirs of the respective
victims. Anent the live ammo of caliber 0.22 (marked as
E-29 with JAM markings), which could not have been used
in a 0.9mm caliber pistol, the same shall remain

in custodia legis pending the outcome of a criminal case
that may be later filed against petitioner Dimal. In Alih v.
Castro,58 it was held that even if the search of petitioners’
premises was violative of the Constitution and the firearms
and ammunition taken therefrom are inadmissible in
evidence, pending determination of the legality of said
articles they can be ordered to remain in custodia
legis subject to appropriate disposition as the
corresponding court may direct in the criminal proceedings
that have been or may thereafter be filed against
petitioners.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review
on certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED. The Court of Appeals’
Decision dated August 27, 2014 in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 128355
is AFFIRMED
_______________
55 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures §83.

56 People v. Nuñez, 609 Phil. 176, 187; 591 SCRA 394, 405 (2009).
57 Id.
58 235 Phil. 270, 278; 151 SCRA 279, 287-288 (1987).
99
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 99

Dimal vs. People
with MODIFICATION to declare that the following

properties seized under Search Warrant No. 10-11 are
inadmissible in evidence for neither having been
particularly described in the search warrant nor seized
under the “plain view doctrine”:
1. Extracted suspected Bloodstain (Marked as E-24 with

JAM markings)
2. Extracted suspected Bloodstain (Marked as E-25 with
JAM markings)
3. One (1) Bra color brown (tiger) (Marked as E-14 with
JAM markings)
4. One (1) cell phone spare part (Marked as E-16 with

JAM markings)
5. One (1) cell phone spare part (Marked as E-17 with
JAM markings)
6. Palay husk with suspected bloodstain (Marked as E-28
with JAM markings)
7. Suspected bloodstain (Marked as E-25-A with JAM
markings)
8. One (1) pc. torn cloth (Marked as E-1 with JAM
markings)
markings)
markings)
11. One (1) pc. spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-4
with JAM markings)
12. One (1) bag pack color black (Marked as E-5 with JAM
markings)
13. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-6 with JAM
markings)
markings)
markings)
markings)
17. One spent shell of caliber 22 (Marked as E-10 with
JAM markings)
JAM markings)
JAM markings)
JAM markings)
100

Dimal vs. People
21. Two (2) Alien Certificate of Registration of Lucio Pua

and Rosemarie Pua, and One (1) BDO Passbook in the
name of Lucio Pua (Marked as E-15 with JAM markings)
JAM markings)
23. One (1) piece gold-plated earring (Marked as E-19 with
JAM markings)
24. Suspected human hair (Marked as E-20 with JAM
markings)
25. A piece of embroider[ed] cloth (Marked as E-22 with
JAM markings)
26. Three (3) burned Tire wires (Marked as E-23 with
JAM markings)
27. One (1) empty plastic bottle of Gleam muriatic acid
28. One (1) live ammo of caliber 22 (Marked as E-29 with
JAM markings)
29. One (1) color white T-shirt (Marked as E-30 with JAM
markings)
Moreover, the two (2) Alien Certificates of Registration

of Lucio Pua and Rosemarie Pua, and One (1) BDO
Passbook in the name of Lucio Pua are directed to be
returned to the respective heirs of said victims, while the
live ammo of caliber 0.22 (marked as E-29 with JAM
markings) shall remain in custodia legis pending the
outcome of the criminal case that may be filed against
petitioner Jaylord Dimal.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio** (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa and

Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petition partially granted, judgment affirmed with

modification.
Notes.—A judicially ordered search that fails to yield

the described illicit article does not of itself render the
court’s order unlawful; Statements of mere conclusions of
law expose the complaint to a motion to dismiss on ground
of failure to state a cause of action. (Del Rosario vs. Donato,
Jr., 614 SCRA 332 [2010])
_______________
** Designated Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated
February 28, 2018.
101
VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 101

Dimal vs. People
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the

“plain view” of an officer, who has a right to be in the
position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may
be presented as evidence. (Fajardo vs. People, 639 SCRA
194 [2011])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Dimal Andcastillo, V People, GR 216922, 18 Apr 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dimal Andcastillo, V People, GR 216922, 18 Apr 2018

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

Dimal Andcastillo, V People, GR 216922, 18 Apr 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 862 Page 1 of 48

G.R. No. 216922. April 18, 2018.*

JAYLORD DIMAL and ALLAN CASTILLO,

Criminal Law; Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention;

VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 63

it is axiomatic that the said examination must be probing and

searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can ascertain

64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ises of the Felix Gumpal Compound because, as aptly ruled

to be searched was available when they filed their omnibus

VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 65

Same; Same; Same; Under American jurisprudence which has

the property to be seized a virtual impossibility, the searching

66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dimal vs. People

the particularity requirement when the affidavit filed in

general exploratory search from one object to another until

VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 67

incriminating character of the evidence, but only that the

68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dimal. In Alih v. Castro, 151 SCRA 279 (1987), it was held

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

At around 6:00 p.m. of September 6, 2010, Lucio Pua,

1 Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, with Associate

VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 69

Dimal vs. People

police station in Alicia, Isabela, to report that they were missing,

4 Id., at pp. 54-55.

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

a. Personal belongings such as:

P/Insp. Malixi stressed that he has personally verified

Gemma Eugenio. P/Insp. Malixi claimed that the

VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 71

After the hearing of the application on October 8, 2010,

The undersigned Presiding Judge personally examined in

sacks of palay sold by the victims and brought to the Felix

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rosemarie Pua, Lucio Pua, and Gemma Eugenio, either to

In the Return on the Search Warrant, P/Insp. Gary

Florencio Miguel, Barangay Kagawads Rodolfo Vergara

The following articles, subject of the warrant, were found

6 Id., at pp. 80-81.

VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 73

a. One (1) pc. torn cloth (Marked as E-1 with JAM

c. One (1) pc. torn cloth (Marked as E-3 with JAM

e. One (1) bag pack color black (Marked as E-5 with

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

v. One (1) color white T-shirt (Marked as E-30 with

On February 20, 2012, petitioners Dimal and Castillo,

That on or about the 6th day of September 2010, and for

Province of Isabela, Philippines and within the jurisdiction

7 Id., at pp. 82-83, 136-138.

VOL. 862, APRIL 18, 2018 75

Pursuant to Administrative Matter No. 12-1-18-RTC,

In an Order13 dated September 28, 2012, the RTC of

9 The names of the 2 victims in the other Informations are Rosemarie

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

more particularly Villador, and finding probable cause based on