Evidence 2nd Batch Cases

8/19/2019 Evidence 2nd Batch Cases

1/82

1. G.R. No. L-37945 May 28, 1984THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

ADRIANO CAETE a!" #OSE $ILOG a%&a'$O(,

defendants-appellants.

RELO)A, J.:

Charged and convicted of the crime of murder by thethen Court of First Instance of Palawan the two (2

accused, !driano Ca"ete and #ose $ilog, were both

sentenced to the ma%imum penalty of death and to

pay &ointly and severally the heirs of the deceased,

'ouglas $ilog, in the sum of P2,))).)) without

subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to

pay proportional costs.

*he People+s version of the facts is as follows

!ccused #ose $ilog and 'ouglas $ilog were brothers. *hey were owners of ad&oining ricelands

ad&acent to the Inagawan-ub Colony at Puerto

Princess, Palawan (p. ), tsn, #an. , /01, !nonas.

*hey were not in good terms and always uarrelled

because #ose resented the fact that 'ouglas has

received a bigger share of the lands inherited from

their parents. (pp. 2, 2), tsn., !nonas.

*he ire of #ose against his brother became unbearable

that on or about !pril 23, /0, he got his father+s

shotgun and waylaid 'ouglas at the bridge leadingtheir house. ! tragic incident was averted only when

Concepcion the wife of 'ouglas, informed her uncle,

Cervancia, of #ose+s evil scheme. Cervancia

immediately went after #ose and succeeded in

retrieving the gun from the latter and tried to settle

their differences (p. ), tsn, !nonas.

*hrough the intercession of 4r. !niceto 5amo, a

Chief of ection in the Inagawan-ub Colony, #ose

$ilog had allowed his farm to be wor6ed by 7icasio

'ayao, a prisoner at the Colony (pp. -8, 1, tsn,'uero. ometime in 4ay, /0 while 'ayao was

wor6ing in the ricefield, #ose $ilog offered him

P1)).)) if he ('ayao would 6ill 'ouglas. 'ayao

as6ed #ose $ilog why he wanted his brother

liuidated. #ose replied that 'ouglas poisoned their

mother and if 'ouglas would not be liuidated he

('ouglas would eventually 6ill all of them in the

family (p. 0, tsn., 'uero. 'ayao re&ected the

proposal and offer of reward. 9e e%plained to #ose

that he could not 6ill 'ouglas because he has many

children to thin6 about (p. 3, tsn., 'uero.

:n !pril /, /02, at about 8)) p.m., Concepcion

$ilog saw from the window of their house in the

ricefield, #ose $ilog riding on a bicycle going

towards the ricefield. :n that occasion she saw #ose

$ilog converse with two colonists (pp. ;-0, ), tsn.,

#an. , /01, !nonas.

!lmost at the same time on that day, !ngel hen $oy $ilog caned for assistance,

a colonist, one hen !ngel


2/82

:n !pril 20, /02, police investigators received

information about the persons seen at the scene of the

crime prior to its commission. *hey too6 into custody

!driano Ca"ete and !ngel hen they

reached Puerto Princess, !driano Ca"ete informed

!ngel


3/82

In what way was he 6illed+H

! 'ouglas was drun6 and he was stabbed by $oy

$ilog.

>hereH

>I*7

! 9e was stabbed near the hut and near the river.

C:Bitness

'id you see by your own eyes when that incident

happenedH! Ges, sir.

FIC!E 'IEI5

>ho was the companion of $oy $ilog when he hit

'ouglas $ilogH

! Ca"ete.

>hen you said Ca"ete, was he the same person

whom you have &ust pointed toH

! Ges, sir.

%%% %%% %%%

FIC!E 'IEI5

Gou said that $oy $ilog hit with this bladedinstrument mar6ed as %h. ?$? 'ouglas $ilog was

'ouglas $ilog hitH

! Ges, sir.

FIC!E 'IEI5

In what part of the body of 'ouglas $ilog was hitH

! !t the bac6 of the body and here at the front.

!fter $oy $ilog hit his brother 'ouglas, do you

6now what happened to the 6nife mar6ed as %h.

?$?H

! Ges, sir.

>hat happened to that weapon mar6ed as %h.?$?H

! *he 6nife dropped in the hand of $oy $ilog. !fter

the 6nife was dropped, 'ouglas $ilog stood up and

he was hit again.

C:B

treachery because the attac6 was une%pected and

sudden, and the victim had no chance to defend

himself. Ei6ewise, the aggravating circumstance of

price was present in the commission of the crime and

this affects not only the person who received the

money or the reward but also the person who gave it.

(People vs. *alledo, 83 Phil. 81/.

>9


4/82

2. PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. *ILLIAMONG y LI a!" CHING DE MING +RO$ERT TI, appellants.

D E C I S I O N

PNO, J .

the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence

that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial

would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of

law and gravely impair the basic function of the

courts. J

Chief #ustice >arren . $urger

*he case at bar involves the clash of two classic

values - - - the need for the tate to stop crimes and

preserve the peace against the right of an individual

to confront material witnesses to establish his

innocence. In balancing the two values, we shall

scrutiniKe and set the parameters that ought to guide

prosecution when to disclose the identity of confidential informers.

:n #uly 20, //3 accused >illiam :ng y Ei and

Ching 'e 4ing L Bpon arraignment, the two (2 accused, who areChinese nationals, pled not guilty. *he records do not

show whether they had sufficient 6nowledge of the

nglish language. *heir trial proceeded. In the course

of the trial, the two (2 accused were given the

services of a Chinese interpreter.

*he prosecution, through the testimony of P:


5/82

:n #uly 2, 2)) at 1)) !.4., the CI received a

call from the drug dealer changing the meeting time

between 2)) and 1)) P.4. on the same day. *he

team, together with the CI, proceeded to the meeting

place and arrived there at around 1) P.4. *he CI

rode with P: 5onKales. *hey par6ed their car

along ;th treet corner 5ilmore !venue. *he rest of

the team posted themselves at their bac6 and their

right side.

! little while, accused :ng approached their

car. *he CI introduced him to P: 5onKales who

told accused :ng in bro6en *agalog to get in the

car. >hen :ng inuired about the money in payment

of the shabu, P: 5onKales showed him the

slightly opened plastic bag containing the boodle

money. P: 5onKales then demanded to see

the shabu. !ccused :ng e%cused himself, went out of

the car, wal6ed a few steps and then waved his right

hand to somebody. >hile accused :ng was wal6ing bac6 to the car, P: 5onKales and the CI saw a

green *oyota Corolla coming. *he Corolla par6ed in

front of their car and a Chinese-loo6ing male, later

identified as accused Ching 'e 4ing L .

$rown plastic bag. *hereafter, P: 5onKalessignaled his bac6-up team by turning on the haKard

lights of the car. P: 5onKales himself arrested

accused :ng while the CI and the bac6-up agents

arrested accused 'e 4ing.

*he officers brought the two (2 accused to their

office where the corresponding boo6ing sheets and

arrest report were prepared. *he plastic bag

containing the white crystalline substance was

referred to the P7P Crime Eaboratory for

e%amination. *he two (2 accused were sub&ected to

a physical and mental e%amination as reuired. *heywere found to be free from any e%ternal signs of

trauma.

Police Inspector 5race 4. ustauio, Forensic

Chemist, P7P Crime Eaboratory, testified that the

specimen she e%amined had a net weight of /3).8)

grams and manifested positive results for methyl

amphetamine hydrochloride1J or what is commonly

6nown as shabu, a regulated drug. 9er testimony was

supported by her Physical ciences illiam :ng, a Chinese citiKen

from the Peoples hile waiting at #ollibee,

accused :ng received a call from :ng in that he

could not personally meet him. Instead, his two (2

co-wor6ers would meet accused :ng asinstructed. ubseuently, two (2 men answering to

:ng ins description approached accused :ng. 9e

&oined them inside a yellow car. >hen they reached a

certain place, the driver reached for his cellular

phone and called up someone. !fter a brief

conversation, the driver handed the phone to

him. :ng in was on the line and informed him that

the driver would accompany him to the bihon

factory. *he driver got out of the car and accused

:ng followed him. !fter wal6ing two (2 bloc6s, the

driver pic6ed up something from the place. *heyreturned to the car. uddenly, the companion of the

driver po6ed a gun at him.9e was arrested,

blindfolded and brought to an undisclosed

place. everal hours later, he was ta6en to the police

station. *here he met the other accused Ching 'e

4ing for the first time.9e maintained innocence to

the crime charged.

:n his part, accused Ching 'e 4ing testified

that he is a legitimate businessman engaged in the

business. 9e claimed that he gets his products

from $aclaran and sells them to customers in thecities of 7aga and 'aet in $icol.

:n #uly 21, //3 at around 1) and 8)) P.4.,

while waiting inside his car for his girlfriend and her

mother who &ust went in a townhouse at 3 th treet,

7ew 4anila, ueKon City, he was approached by

persons un6nown to him. *hey as6ed him what he

was doing there. :ne of them went to the car par6ed

at his bac6, ordered somebody inside to get out and

ta6e a good loo6 at him. *he person pointed at him

saying maybe he is the one. 9e was then dragged outof his car and brought to the other car. *hey too6 his

clutch bag. *hey blindfolded and brought him to a

place. !fter a few hours, at Camp Crame, ueKon

City, they removed his blindfold. 9e denied 6nowing

accused :ng and the charge of conspiring with him

to deliver shabu in 7ew 4anila, ueKon City.

!velina CardoK, the mother of his girlfriend, and

a divine healer, corroborated his story. he testified

that she reuested accused 'e 4ing to drive her to a

townhouse at 3th treet, 7ew 4anila, to cure a

patient. he declared that the officers of the Peoples#ournal publication could attest to her profession. he

as6ed accused 'e 4ing to wait for her and her

daughter inside his car. >hen they returned to the

car, accused 'e 4ing was nowhere to be found. *hey

saw him ne%t at the ueKon City #ail.

:n 7ovember 3, //3 the trial court convicted

appellants as charged and imposed on them the

penalty of death. It li6ewise ordered each of them to

pay a fine of P million pesos.8J

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn5


6/82

*he case is with us on automatic

review. !ppellants insist on their innocence. *hey

claim that their guilt was not proven beyond

reasonable doubt.

>e agree.

I

&!" a &!"" 6o''''' e again emphasiKe that the reuirement that the

information should be read in a language or dialect6nown to the accused is mandatory. It must be strictly

complied with as it is intended to protect the

constitutional right of the accused to be informed of

the nature and cause of the accusation against

him. *he constitutional protection is part of due

process. Failure to observe the rules necessarily

nullifies the arraignment.J

II

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn11


7/82

4ore important than the invalid arraignment of

the appellants, we find that the prosecution evidence

failed to prove that appellants &%%0%%y a!"!%a0%%y 'o%" o/ o00/" o '%%shabu.

!ppellants conviction is based on the lone

testimony of P: 5onKales. 9e was the designated

poseur-buyer in the team formed for the buy-bust

operation. $ut a careful reading of his testimony willreveal that a' !o 6/&>y o 'a%/a!'a&o! that transpired between the CI andappellant >illiam :ng, the alleged pusher. It is

beyond contention that a contract of sale is perfected

upon a meeting of the minds of the parties on the

ob&ect and its price.2J 7ot all elements of the sale

were established by the testimony of P: 5onKales,

viK

Pilliam :ng thru a bro6en

tagalog conversation.

>hen your CI contacted with >illiam

:ng in bro6en tagalogH

! I have a conversation with >illiam :ng

in bro6en tagalog the deal of one 6ilogram of shabu was initially closed.

>hen you say closed, what do you mean

by thatH

! Ty a/" o 'a% o0 'a=.

!**G. *!,N Ma!&%a, Bo! C&y, =! 4o%o; o 5 o%o; &! o/!&! o0#%y 24, 1998, aa.

o when the CI informed you that they

will meet at ;th treet, 7ew

4anila, ueKon City, what transpired

ne%tH

! :n or about 1 ocloc6 in the morning

>illiam :ng made a call to our CIinforming him that the sale of the

delivery of shabu was reset to another

time.1J

% % % %

P


8/82

! T CI &!0o/" ' a & &%%= a a=o 2 o 3 o%o; &! a0/!oo! o0 a 'a "ay a!" 6%a.J

It is abundantly clear that & a' CI oa" &!&&a% o!a, albeit only through thetelephone, with the pusher. *he CI was li6ewise

o! o %o'" "a% with appellant :ng as to theuantity of shabu to be purchased and its price. 9ealso ' >! a!" & o0 &! whenthe sale would ta6e place. *he Joint ffidavit of

rrest 8Je%ecuted by P: 5onKales, P:2 lmer 7.

arampote and P: 7oli #ingo 5. hen they met, they &ust proceeded with the

e%change of money and shabu, viK

Pilliam :ng emerged from

5ilmore !venue and approached me

and our CI, maam.;J

% % % %

!nd when he approached you what did

you do if anyH

! :ur CI introduced me to >illiam :ng as

an interested buyer of one 6ilo gram of

shabu and afterwards I as6ed >illiam

:ng in bro6en tagalog to get inside the

car .0J

% % % %

!nd while inside the car, what happened

ne%tH

! >hile inside the car >illiam :ng as6ed

me about the payment of the stuff and I

got the paper bag and slightly

opened. o that I get the plastic bag and

show to >illiam :ng the boodle

money.

>hen you showed the boodle money to

>illiam :ng what did he do if there

was anyH

! 9e loo6ed at it, maam.

!nd when he loo6ed at it what happened

ne%tH

! I told him that I should loo6 at the stuff

before I give the money.

>hat stuff are you referring toH

! *he shabu, maam.

!nd what did you do after e%pecting the

boodle money or the bag where the boodle money was placed, if there was

anyH

! 9e e%cused himself and alighted from

our car and told me to wait for his

companion.

!nd where you able to wait for that male

companion he is referring toH

! 9e wal6ed a distance and waved at his

companion as if somebody will come tohim.

9ow did he do thatH

! (put on record that the witness when

answering the uestion he stood up and

then used his right hand in waving as if

he is calling for somebody

>hen >illiam :ng waved his right hand

to his companion what happenedH

! >illiam :ng wal6ed towards to me andsuddenly a green *oyota appeared and

par6ed in front of our car.

>hen a green *oyota corolla was par6ed

in front of the car, what happened ne%tH

! Chinese loo6ing male person alighted

from the car and he went to >illiam

:ng and handed to >illiam :ng

something that was gift wrapped.3J

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn18


9/82

% % % %

>hen that thing was handed to >illiam

:ng which identified in Court and

which was mar6ed, what did >illiam

:ng doH

! >illiam :ng too6 it from Ching 'e

4ing, maam.

>hen this %hibit was given to by

>illiam :ng what did you do in returnH

! I opened that something which was gift

wrapped and I saw one sealed plastic

bag containing white crystalline

substance suspected to be a shabu./J

% % % %

>hen you saw this %hibit C-2

crystalline substance which was opened

according to you. >hat did you doH

! *he companion of >illiam :ng

demanded to me the money and I gave

to him the boodle money.

>hen you gave the boodle money to

him, what did he do if any these person

who secured the moneyH

! 9e too6 the money inside the bag. 2)J

ince o!%y CI a" 6/'o!a% ;!o%" of the offer to purchase shabu, the acceptance of theoffer and the consideration for the offer, we hold that

P: 5onKales is, in effect,!o 6o'/-=y/= /%y "%&>/ya!. 9is testimonytherefore on a/&a% 6o&!' of the sale of shabu ishearsay and standing alone cannot be the basis of the

conviction of the appellants.2J

III

>e further hold that the prosecution failed to

establish its claim of entrapment.

! buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment,

which in recent years has been accepted as a valid

means of arresting violators of the 'angerous 'rugs

Eaw.22J It is commonly employed by police officers

as an effective way of apprehending law offenders in

the act of committing a crime.21J In a buy-bust

operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from

the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding

him to commit the offense.2J Its opposite is

instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its

agent lures the accused into committing the offensein order to prosecute him. 28J Instigation is deemed

contrary to public policy and considered an

absolutory cause.2;J

*o determine whether there was a valid

entrapment or whether proper procedures were

underta6en in effecting the buy-bust operation, it is

incumbent upon the courts to ma6e sure that the

details of the operation are clearly and adeuately

laid out through relevant, material and competent

evidence. For, the courts could not merely rely on but

must apply with studied restraint the presumption of

regularity in the performance of official duty by law

enforcement agents. *his presumption should not by

itself prevail over the presumption of innocence and

the constitutionally protected rights of the individual.20J It is the duty of courts to preserve the purity of

their own temple from the prostitution of the criminal

law through lawless enforcement.23JCourts shouldnot allow themselves to be used as instruments of

abuse and in&ustice lest innocent persons are made to

suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug

offenses.2/J

In Po6% >. Do/&a,1)J we stressed the o=&>' in buy-bust operations. >e ruled that in suchoperations, the prosecution must present a complete

picture detailing the transaction, which must start

from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and

the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation

of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug sub&ect

of the sale.1J >e emphasiKed that the manner by

which the initial contact was made, the offer to

purchase the drug, the payment of the +buy-bust+

money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be

the sub&ect of strict scrutiny by courts to &!'/ a%a-a=&"&! &&!' a/ !o !%a0%%y &!"" oo& a! o00!'.12J

I! a' a =a/, 6/o'&o! >&"!

a=o =y-=' o6/a&o! &' &!o6%. *heconfidential informant who had sole 6nowledge of

how the alleged illegal sale ofshabu started and how

it was perfected was not presented as a witness. 9is

testimony was given instead by P: 5onKales who

had no personal 6nowledge of the same. :n this

score, P: 5onKales testimony is hearsay and

possesses no probative value unless it can be shown

that the same falls within the e%ception to the hearsay

rule.11J *o impart probative value to these hearsay

statements and convict the appellant solely on this

basis would be to render nugatory hisconstitutional /& o o!0/o! &!'' againsthim, in this case the informant, and to e%amine him

for his truthfulness.1J !s the prosecution failed to

prove all the material details of the buy-bust

operation, its claim that there was a valid entrapment

of the appellants must fail.

I)

*he Court is sharply aware of the compelling

considerations why confidential informants are

usually not presented by the prosecution. :ne is theneed to hide their identity and preserve their

invaluable service to the police.18J !nother is the

necessity to protect them from being ob&ects or

targets of revenge by the criminals they implicate

once they become 6nown. !ll these considerations,

however, have to be balanced with the right of an

accused to a fair trial.

*he ruling of the B.. upreme Court

in Ro>&a/o >. .S.1;J on informers privilege is

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn36


10/82

instructive. In said case, the principal issue

on certiorari is whether the Bnited tates 'istrict

Court committed reversible error when it allowed the

5overnment not to disclose the identity of an

undercover employee o a" 6%ay" a a/&a%6a/ in bringing about the possession of certain drugs by the accused, a" =! 6/'! with the accusedat the occurrence of the alleged crime, and might be

a a/&a% &!'' to whether the accused6nowingly transported the drugs as charged.10J *he

Court, through 4r. #ustice $urton, granted certiorari

in order to pass upon the propriety of disclosure of

the informers identity.

4r. #ustice $urton e%plained that what is usually

referred to as the informers privilege is in reality the

5overnments privilege to withhold from disclosure

the identity of persons who furnish information of

violations of law to officers charged with

enforcement of that law.

13J

*he 6/6o' of the privilege is the furtherance and protection of the public interest in effective law enforcement. *he

privilege recogniKes the obligation of citiKens to

communicate their 6nowledge of the commission of

crimes to law-enforcement officials and, by

preserving their anonymity, encourages them to

perform that obligation.

It was held that the 'o6 o0 6/&>&% &'%&&" =y &' !"/%y&! 6/6o'. *hus, where thedisclosure of the contents of the communication will

not tend to reveal the identity of an informer, thecontents are not privileged.1/J Ei6ewise, o! &"!&y o0 &!0o// a' =! "&'%o'" oo' o o%" a> a' o /'! o!&a&o!, 6/&>&% &' !o %o!/a66%&a=%.)J

! 0// %&&a&o! on the applicability of the privilege, which arises from the fundamental

reuirements of fairness was emphasiKed. >here the

disclosure of an informers identity, or the contents of

his communication, &' /%>a! a!" %60% o "0!' o0 a! a'", o/ &' ''!&a% o a 0a&/"/&!a&o! o0 a a', 6/&>&% ' &>ay.J In these situations, the trial court may reuiredisclosure and dismiss the action if the 5overnment

withholds the information.2J

In sum, / &' !o 0&" /% with respect todisclosure of the identity of an informer. *he

problem has to be resolved on a case to case basis

and calls for =a%a!&! the state interest in protecting people from crimes against the individuals right to

prepare his defense. *he balance must be ad&usted bygiving due weight to the following factors, among

others ( the crime charged, (2 the possible

defenses, (1 the possible significance of the

informers testimony, and ( other relevant factors.1J

In the case at bar, the crime charged against the

appellants is capital in character and can result in the

imposition of the death penalty. *hey have foisted the

defense of instigation which is in sharp contrast to

the claim of entrapment by the prosecution. *he

prosecution has to prove all the material elements of

the alleged sale of shabu and the resulting buy-bust

operation. >here the testimony of the informer is

indispensable, it should be disclosed. *he liberty and

the life of a person en&oy high importance in our

scale of values. It cannot be diminished e%cept by a

value of higher significance.

)4oreover, the mishandling and transfer of

custody of the alleged confiscated methyl

amphetamine hydrochloride or shabu further

shattered the case of the prosecution. *here is no

crime of illegal sale of regulated drug when there is a

nagging doubt on whether the substance confiscated

was the same specimen e%amined and established to

be regulated drug.

!fter the arrest of the appellants, the records

show that the substance allegedly ta6en from themwas submitted to the P7P Crime Eaboratory for

e%amination upon reuest of the Chief of the :'

7arcotics 5roup, ueKon City.J Police Inspector

5race 4. ustauio, Forensic Chemist, P7P Crime

Eaboratory, testified that the ualitative e%amination

she conducted manifested positive results for methyl

amphetamine hydrochloride with net weight of

/3).8) grams.8J *his is not in dispute. *he issue is

whether the substance e%amined was the same as that

allegedly confiscated from appellants.

*he Joint ffidavit of rrest ;J merely states thatthe evidence confiscated was submitted to the P7P

Crime Eaboratory 5roup for ualitative

e%amination. P: 5onKales testified on direct

e%amination that

>hen you arrested them according to

you, what other steps did you ta6e if

anyH

! >e brought them to our office and we

reuested the crime

laboratory Camp Crame to test thesuspected shabu that we recovered from

both of them.0J

:n cross-e%amination, the defense only got this

statement from P: 5onKales regarding the

evidence allegedly confiscated

!nd you immediately brought him to

your office at Camp !guinaldoH

! !fter we gathered the evidences we

turned them over to our office, sir.

3J

Clearly, there was no reference to the person

who submitted it to the P7P Crime Eaboratory for

e%amination. It is the !emorandum"Re#uest for

$aboratory E%amination/J which indicates that a

certain P: Castro submitted the specimen for

e%amination. 9owever, the rest of the records of the

case failed to show the role of P: Castro in the

buy-bust operation, if any. In the Joint ffidavit of

rrest, the only participants in the operation were

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/137348.htm#_ftn49


11/82

enumerated as P: 5onKales as the poseur-buyer,

Police Inspector 4edel 4. Poe as the team leader

with P:2 lmer 7. arampote and P: 7oli #ingo

5. hen you say team, who compose the

teamH

! I and more or less eight (3 person,

maam.

Can you name the member of the teamH

! :ur team led by Inspector 4edel Poe, I

myself, P:2 lmer arampote, P:

7oli #ingo 5.


12/82

3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, a ppellee,vs. $ENN( GO, appellant.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO-MORALES, J .

:n direct appeal before this Court is the

'ecision of the arrant is validD and (2 the Forensic Chemist

conducted only a ualitative e%amination on the

sub&ect specimen.J

*he prosecution presented the following

witnesses ( Police Inspector dwin Nata, Forensic

Chemical :fficer of the Philippine 7ational Police

(P7P Crime EaboratoryD (2 P:2 5erardo !bulencia

(P:2 !bulenciaD (1 P: dgardo 5. FernandeK(P: FernandeKD and ( P: Aer 4. eruea

(P: Aer eruea whose testimonies sought to

establish the following facts

:n !pril 23, ///, P: FernandeK, P:

eruea and a confidential informant conducted a test

buy operation at the residence of appellant at 3)

5eneral Euna treet, rmita, 4anila during which

they purchased from him P,8)).)) worth of

methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.8J *he

police officers did not immediately arrest him,

however. Instead, they applied for a earch >arrantfor appellants residence from the


13/82

:n instruction of P: FernandeK, P:

eruea left to summon barangay officials to witness

the search. P: eruea returned five minutes later

with &arangay 'agawads 5aspar EaKaro

( 'agawad EaKaro and mmanuel 4analo

( 'agawad 4analo who were advised by P:

FernandeK to be witnesses to the search and to

afterwards sign the inventory receipt and affidavit of

orderly search.

!s instructed, the two barangay

kagawads proceeded to the upper floor of appellants

house with P: eruea and P:2 !bulencia.1J >hile P: FernandeK, who remained downstairs

in the sala,J instructed the handcuffed #ac6 5o to

witness the search, the latter refused since there will

be no more left in the sala of the house anyway there

is a barangay official.8J

In the course of the search of the premises which

too6 place from ;)) to )) in the evening,;J 'agawad EaKaro and P:2 !bulencia recovered

one 6not tied transparent plastic bag containing white

crystalline substance0J from the drawer of a cabinet.

!lso seiKed from the residence of appellant were

the following (a one plastic bag containing

yellowish substance3J found by P: erueaD/J (b a weighing scale discovered by P:

FernandeKD (c assorted documentsD (d passportsD (e

ban6 boo6sD (f chec6sD (g a typewriterD (h a chec6

writerD (i several dry seals and (& stamp padsD

2)J

(6Chinese and Philippine currencyD2J (l and appellants

*oyota Corolla 5EI22J car (the car.

*he plastic bag containing the white crystalline

substance was mar6ed by P: FernandeK as 5F-

!-, while the plastic bag with the yellowish

substance was mar6ed as 5F-!-2.21J

>ith the e%ception of the car, all the seiKed items

were brought to the dining table on the ground floor

of appellants house for inventory.2J

In the meantime, appellants wife hi =iu :ngand his friends amson 5o and Peter Co arrived one

after the other at the house.28J !ppellant himself

arrived at /1) in the evening when the search was

almost through.2;J

!fter the inventory had been ta6en, P:

FernandeK prepared a handwritten Inventory


14/82

eruea and another police officer who accused him

of manufacturing shabu and divested him of money

amounting to more than P8,))).)). 9e was later

released as the policemen could not charge him with

anything.8J

:n #uly , /// at around 81) in the

afternoon, #ac6 5o opened the door of their house

after hearing somebody shout that the car had been bumped. Five armed policemen then entered the

house, one of whom handcuffed him while two went

up to the upper floor of the house and searched for

about thirty (1) minutes. ;J

!t past ;)) p.m., as the two kagawads entered

the house which was already in disarray, P:

FernandeK formed two groups to conduct the search

at the second floor ( that of P:2 !bulencia,

with 'agawad EaKaro to serve as witness, and (2

that of P: eruea, with 'agawad 4analo to

serve as witness.0J

P:2 !bulencia, together with 'agawad EaKaro,

searched the room of #ac6 5o. P: eruea,

accompanied by 'agawad 4analo, searched the

study room where he seiKed documents, passports

and assorted papers.

P: eruea and 'agawad 4analo then

proceeded to the room of appellant followed by P:2

!bulencia and 'agawad EaKaro. From the room of

appellant, the policemen seiKed documents,

passports, ban6boo6s and money.3J

!fter the search, the policemen and barangay

kagawads went down with three bo%es containing

passports, money and assorted Chinese medicine./J

>hen appellants wife arrived at around 01)

p.m.,8)J P: FernandeK ordered her to open the safe

(kaha de yero inside appellants room where the

police officers seiKed money, passports, ban6boo6s,

Chinese currency and pieces of &ewelry.8J

*he seiKed items were placed on appellants tableon the first floor of the house where they were

inventoried by P: FernandeK82J during which

the barangay kagawads did not see either %hibit !,

the plastic bag containing the suspected shabu, or the

weighing scale.81J

!fter P: FernandeK prepared a two-page

Inventory hile #ac6 5o

initially refused, he eventually did sign both

documents without having read them completely

after he was hit by the policemen. *he two barangaykagawads also signed both pages of the Inventory

hen appellant arrived at around 31) p.m., he

was handcuffed and li6ewise made to sign the

Inventory


15/82

*9 *9IC9 >$G *9 PI*7 $!!' 5!P!< E!N!EE ! $G

'F7 >I*7.

*9I: 9B7'

I7F:/, o&! 0%%

%! o0 /o;" &!a&" o0 6/o'' ! a! o00&/ !"/a;' o '&0y !"/ &.02J (mphasis suppliedD citationsomitted

Indeed, a strict interpretation of the

constitutional, statutory and procedural rules

authoriKing search and seiKure is reuired, and strict

compliance therewith is demanded because

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn68http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn69http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn71http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn71http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn72http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn68http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn69http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn71http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn72


16/82

% % % :f all the rights of a citiKen, few are of greater

importance or more essential to his peace and

happiness than the right of personal security, and that

involves the e%emption of his private affairs, boo6s,

and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of

others. >hile the power to search and seiKe is

necessary to the public welfare, still it must be

e%ercised and the law enforced without transgressing

the constitutional rights of citiKens, for theenforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance

to &ustify indifference to the basic principles of

government.01J

In arriving at the appealed decision, the trial

court placed greater weight on the testimony of the

police officers to whom it accorded the presumption

of regularity in the performance of duty, vi*

Coming to the first issue raised, Co/ &>'

/"! o '&o!&' o0 6o%& o00&/'a!" ao/"' 6/'6&o! o0 /%a/&y &! 6/0o/a! o0 &/ "y. T Co/ a'o='/>" "a!o/ o0 &!''' a!" 0&!"' 6/o'&o! &!''' o/ /"&=% a! "0!' &!'''. % % %

:n the other hand, / &' !o 'o&! a 6o%& o00&/' a" &%% o&> ! y a66%&"0o/ a!" '/" Sa/ *a//a!, /a&"" o' o0 a'" a!" a//'" &. !ccused is

a Chinese national who appeared to have no uarrelwith the arresting police officers and thus the police

officers had no reason to fabricate or trump up

charges against him. H!, / a66a/' o = !o/a'o! 6o%& o00&/' 'o%" !o = ao/"" 6/'6&o! o0 /%a/&y &! 6/0o/a!o0 &/ "y. !s held by the upreme Court, (Eawenforcers are presumed to have regularly performed

their official duty, in the absence of the evidence to

the contrary. % % % >e see no valid obstacle to the

application of the ruling in People vs. Capulong, (;)

C/%a/%y 6/0o/" &/ "y &! a='! o0o!>&!&! 6/oo0 o o!/a/y.*he appellant hasnot shown that the prosecution witnesses were

motivated by any improper motive other than that of

accomplishing their mission. (People of the

Philippines, Plaintiff-appellee, vs. aid ariol G

4uhamading, accused-appellant, 0 C

!t the same time, the trial court based its finding

that the search of appellants residence was proper

and valid on the so-called !ffidavit of :rderly

earch.

:n the second issue raised, >a%&"&y o0 Sa/ *a//a! &' %a/%y 'o! =y A00&"a>&o0 O/"/%y Sa/ '&!" =y a'" a!" &''o! #a; Go a!" &' &!''' Sa%>a"o/ Ma!a%o

a!" Ga'6a/ Laa/o. S A00&"a>& o0 O/"/%ySa/ o6%" & '&o!&' o0 6o%&o00&/' a> %a/%y 'a=%&'" 6/o6/&y a!">a%&"&y o0 'a/.08J (mphasis supplied

*he rule that a trial courts findings are accorded

the highest degree of respect, it being in a position to

observe the demeanor and manner of testifying of the

witnesses,0;J is not absolute and does not apply whena careful review of the records and a meticulous

evaluation of the evidence reveal vital facts and

circumstances which the trial court overloo6ed or

misapprehended and which if ta6en into account

would alter the result of the case.00J

In the case at bar, an e%amination of the

testimonies of the police officers brings to light

several irregularities in the manner by which the

search of appellants residence was conducted.

$y P:2 !bulencias own account, in order toenter the premises to be searched, the police officers

deliberately side-swiped appellants car which was

par6ed alongside the road, instead of following the

regular 6noc6 and announce procedure as outlined in

ection 0 (formerly ection ;,


17/82

the earch >arrant issued by #udge

Eilia EopeKH

! >e entered inside the house of the sub&ect

and we were able to see (nadatnan

naming #ac6 5o, the son of $enny 5o,

sir.

% % %

!nd what was the reaction of #ac6 5o, if

anyH

! >e introduced ourselves as police officers

and we have a earch >arrant to

conduct a search to the above sub&ect

place a!" a%'o a!"00" #a; Go o a&/, '&/.

*y "&" yo "o a, M/. &!''

! H&!"& !a&! ;a;&%a%a &yo! a ao,

'&/ ;aya a!oo! a! &!aa !a&!6a/a &!"& ;a& aa!o, &!"&!a&! ;a=&'a"o &yo! a%&, '&/.

Pros. o%&!o'"o!' a I a' !o a=% oa; a %&'&! o0 'a&" 6a''6o/'.

A!" & a' o!%y &' Oo=/ 8, 1999 o/0o/ o!' a0/ a yo a" a"a&%" /&6 o0 o' '&" &',

a I /&! (', '&/.

% % %

I' & yo/ 'a!"a/" o6/a&! 6/o"/a ! / a/ >o%&!o''&" &' yo &%% !o (sic@ %o!/a" ?sic@ a! &!>!o/y /6o/, a I/&

! I' !o a! SOP.

*y "&" yo !o a; a "a&%"&!>!o/y o/ /&6

! A' I> 'a&" a/%&/, &'>o%&!o'. 32J (mphasis supplied

In sian (urety nd Insurance +o., Inc. v.

errera,31J this Court stressed the necessity for

a "a&%" receipt of the items seiKed in order to

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn80http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn81http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn82http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn82http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn83http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn80http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn81http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn82http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn83


18/82

adeuately safeguard the constitutional rights of the

person searched

4oreover, as contended by petitioner, /'6o!"!'&! %&; a!!/ /a!'/''" S&o! 1 o0 R%12 o0 R%' 0o/ 0a&%/ o &> a "a&%"/&6 o0 &!' '&". Go&! o>/ /&6'(!nne%es $ $-, $-2, $-1 and $- of the

Petition &''", * 0o!" the following one bordereau of reinsurance, 3 fire registers, marine

register, four annual statements, 0o%"/' "'/&="o!%y a' $!"% -1 /" 0o%"/' =!"% 17-22 =&a/o! 0o%"/' 0o%"/' o0 >a/&o' '&',., &o 'a&! /&! !a/ a!" ;&!" o0 "o!' o!a&!" &! 0o%"/' o0 & // a=o a o'a!" o0 a /'&". I! '&/ o0 o a/%oa"' o0 "o!'a!" o/ 6a6/', 6o''&=&%&y a /'6o!"!' oo; aay 6/&>a 6a6/' o0

6&&o!/, &! >&o%a&o! o0 &' o!'&&o!a% /&',&' !o /o, for the 7$I agents virtually had afield day with the broad and unlimited search warrant

issued by respondent #udge as their passport.3J (mphasis and underscoring supplied

!fter the inventory had been prepared, P:2

!bulencia presented it to appellant for his

signature38J without any showing that appellant was

informed of his right !o to sign such receipt and tothe assistance of counsel. 7either was he warned that

the same could be used as evidence against him.Faced with similar circumstances, this Court

in People v. -esmundo3;Jstated

It is true that the police were able to get an admission

from the accused-appellant that mari&uana was found

in her possession but 'a&" a"&''&o! =o"&" &! a"o! !&%" PAGPATNA( 6/>&o'%y6/6a/" =y 6o%&, &' &!a"&''&=% &! >&"!aa&!' a'"-a66%%a! 0o/ a>&! =!o=a&!" &! >&o%a&o! o0 / /&' a' a 6/'o!

!"/ 'o"&a% &!>'&a&o! 0o/ o&''&o!o0 a! o00!'. *he records show that a'"-a66%%a! a' !o &!0o/" o0 / /& !o o '&! "o! !&/ a' ' &!0o/" o0 //& o a''&'a! o0 o!'% a!" 0a a "o! ay = '" a' >&"! aa&!'/.30J (mphasis and underscoring supplied,citations omitted

In People v. Policarpio,33J this Court held that

such practice of inducing suspects to sign receipts for

property allegedly confiscated from their possessionis unusual and violative of the constitutional right to

remain silent, vi*

>hat the records show is that appellant was informed

of his constitutional right to be silent and that he may

refuse to give a statement which may be used against

him, that is why he refused to give a written

statement unless it is made in the presence of his

lawyer as shown by the paper he signed to this

effect. 9owever, he was made to ac6nowledge that

the si% (; small plastic bags of dried mari&uana

leaves were confiscated from him by signing a

receipt and to sign a receipt for the P2).)) bill as

purchase price of the dried mari&uana leaves he sold

to Pat. 4angila.

:bviously the appellant was the victim of a clever

ruse to ma6e him sign these alleged receipts which ineffect are e%tra-&udicial confessions of the

commission of the offense. I!"" & &' !'a% 0o/a66%%a! o = a" o '&! /&6' 0o/ a/ a;! 0/o &. I &' 6o%& o00&/' oo!0&'a" 'a o 'o%" a> '&!" '/&6'. No "o= &' &' a >&o%a&o! o0 o!'&&o!a% /& o0 a66%%a! o /a&! '&%!/=y a' a" o a"& o&''&o! o0 o00!' &o &!0o/&! & o0 &'/&. uch a confession obtained in violation of the

Constitution is inadmissible in evidence.3/J (mphasis supplied

*he Inventory


19/82

inventory of the items seiKed. !ny violation of the

foregoing constitutes contempt of court.

5iven the foregoing deviations from the normal

and prescribed manner of conducting a search, as

disclosed by the members of the raiding team

themselves, the reliance by the trial court on the

disputable presumption that the police officers

regularly performed their official duty was evidentlymisplaced.

*he !ffidavit of :rderly earch is not of any

help in indicating the regularity of the search. 7ot

having been e%ecuted under oath, it is not actually an

affidavit, but a pre-prepared form which the raiding

team brought with them. It was filled up after the

search by team leader P: FernandeK who then

instructed appellant to sign it as he did instruct #ac6

5o, 'agawad 4analo and 'agawad EaKaro to sign as

witnesses.

4ore importantly, since the !ffidavit of :rderly

earch purports to have been e%ecuted by appellant,

the same cannot establish the propriety and validity

of the search of his residence for he was admittedly

not present when the search too6 place, he having

arrived only when it was almost through.

!nd while your officers and the barangay

6agawad were searching the house 4r.

$enny 5o is not yet present in that

house, am I rightH

! Ges, sir.

!nd you made to sign $enny 5o in the

inventory receipt when the search was

already over, am I rightH

! 9e was already present when I was

ma6ing the inventory. 9e arrived at

around /1).

Ges, and the search was already finished,

am I rightH

! !lmost through./;J

In fine, since appellant did not witness the search

of his residence, his alleged !ffidavit of :rderly

earch, prepared without the aid of counsel and by

the very police officers who searched his residence

and eventually arrested him, provides no proof of the

regularity and propriety of the search in uestion.

:n the contrary, from the account of the police

officers, their search of appellants residence failed to

comply with the mandatory provisions of ection 3(formerly ection 0, &o%a&> o0=o '6&/& a!" %/ o0 %a./0J (mphasisand underscoring supplied

*hat the raiding party summoned two barangay

kagawads to witness the search at the second floor is

of no moment. *he


20/82

*he claim of P: FernandeK and P:2

!bulencia that #ac6 5o voluntarily waived his right

to witness the search, allegedly because there would

be no one left in the sala and

anywaybarangay officials were present, cannot be

accepted. *o be valid, a waiver must be made

voluntarily, 6nowingly and intelligently./3J Furthermore, the presumption is always against

the waiver of a constitutionally protected right.//J

>hile #ac6 5o was present from the time the

raiding team entered the premises until after the

search was completed, he was, however, handcuffed

to a chair in the sala. ))J !ll alone and confronted by

five police officers who had deprived him of his

liberty, he cannot thus be considered to have

voluntarily, 6nowingly and intelligently waived his

right to witness the search of the house. Consent

given under such intimidating, coercive

circumstances is no consent within the purview of theconstitutional guaranty.)J

*he search conducted by the police officers of

appellants residence is essentially no different from

that in People v. 1el Rosario)2J where this Court

observed

* ' !/a&! '/&o' "o=' a 'a=o!a&!" &! a 'a%% a!&'/ a' aa%%y '&"o/ o!0&'a" a /'&"! o0 a'"-a66%%a!. In conseuence, a!!/ 6o%&

o00&/' o!"" '='&%. In earlier times the action of trespassagainst the offending official may have been

protection enoughD but that is true no longer. O!%y &!a' 6/o'&o! & &'%0 o!/o%' '&&! o00&&a%', ;!o' a & a!!o 6/o0& =y&/ /o!, &%% a /o! = /6/''".)8J (mphasis supplied

In all prosecutions for violation of *he

'angerous 'rugs !ct, the e%istence of the dangerous

drug is a condition sine #ua non for conviction since

the dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the

crime.);J >ith the e%clusion of %hibit !, the plastic

bag containing the shabu allegedly recovered from

appellants residence by the raiding team, the decision

of the trial court must necessarily be reversed and

appellant acuitted.

>hat is more, a thorough evaluation of thetestimonies and evidence given before the trial court

fails to provide the moral certainty necessary to

sustain the conviction of appellant.

In particular, &arangay 'agawads EaKaro and

4analo, the two witnesses to the search chosen by

the police officers in substitution of #ac6 5o, both

categorically testified under oath that no shabu was

recovered from appellants residence by the

police. *hus, 'agawad EaKaro testified that the

plastic bag containing white crystalline granules,

later found positive for shabu, was not recovered fromthe room of #ac6 5o

!tty.


21/82

now, did you recover anything from the

room of #ac6 5oH

! P:2 !bulencia recovered one small

plastic in the drawer of #ac6 5o and

7aphthalene balls, sir.

% % %

!tty. /" 0/o /oo o0 #a; Go, '&/.

D/&! 6/6a/a&o! o0 &!>!o/y o0 '&" &', a' &'a%'o &!%""

! I "&" !o ' a, '&/.)0J (mphasissupplied

imilarly, 'agawad 4analo testified that neither

the plastic bag of shabu nor the weighing scale was

among the seiKed items inventoried by the raidingteam

Gou said that you were present during the

time when P: FernandeK was

preparing the inventory of all the items

ta6en from the premises of $enny 5o,

can you recall what are these itemsH

! Ges sir, assorted Chinese medicines,

assorted documents, papers, passports,

stamp pad, ban6boo6s and chec6s and it

was placed in five (8 bo%es and three

(1 ladies bag. *a a=o a &&! 'a% I' /

a &&! 'a%, M/. *&!''! I "&" !o ' a!y &&! 'a%, '&/. Ho a=o "/' o/ 'a= o!a&!" &!

a 6%a'& 6a;! I "&" !o ' a!y a%'o.)3J (mphasis

supplied

:n rebuttal, P: FernandeK alleged that the

two barangay kagawads were lying when they

claimed that no shabu was recovered from appellants

residence, and implied that they had been as6ed to

falsify their testimonies in court

Pros. ell, it has not been our practice to let the

witness sign on the first page of the 2-

page inventory receipt and with regardsto the said inventory receipt that he

signed on #une , it is the same

inventory receipt that I prepared, sir.

% % %

Ei6ewise, 4r. witness, the said &!''Sa%>a"o/ Ma!a%o a%'o "!&" a 'a= & &' '= o0 &' a'a' !>/ =! /o>/" =y ,a a! yo 'ay o a

! *%%, &' a %&, '&/.

*y "o yo 'ay a! $a' ! &%%a% "/ a'

0o!" =y PO2 A=%!&a, a'ao6a!&" =y Ga'6a/ Laa/o aa &. T! a%%" ya!&o! a!" a%'o a%%" a!&o! o0 SPO2 S/a"o/Ma!a%o. *! I ! 6'a&/', y

/ a%/a"y &!'&" 'a&" /oo 'o 0&> o0 ' 'a &%%a% "/', '&/.% % %

Pros. a"o/ Ma!a%o a0/ 6/%&&!a/y &!>'&a&o!

>itness

$a' "/&! 6/%&&!a/y&!>'&a&o!, / '/6/&'" yo/ &!'' a' a;! '&", & &' o! '&" o0 a'" $!!y Go 'o I"&"" o 6ay & a >&'& a "aya0/ a o!0/o!a&o! o! #! 23a!" I a';" & a a66!",&!a!o! ;o '&ya ;! a!o a!!a!ya/& =a;& ;a! !a;a6& !a'&ya /oo! 'a ;a=&%a. A! 'ao !&ya 'aa;&! a! 'a=& 'a a&! !& Ay. Ga%&!

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/144639.htm#_ftn108


22/82

;a;a'a6&! ;a /&! !&ya. Ta &' a o/"'.

!tty. e will ob&ect to that for being

hearsay. 4ay we move that the latter

portion be stric6en off the record.

Court

Eet it remain

Pros. hereH

! !t his store in !. Einao treet, Paco, sir.

!nd a a' yo/ /'6o!' a0/ yoa/" a a!'/ 0/o Sa%>a"o/Ma!a%o, &0 a!y, M/. &!''

>itness

S&y6/ !aa;a a;o, =a;& a!oo! &=&

'a=&&! &6%&" =a;a !a;a-a/%a! !a, &ya! a! &!&&'&6 ;o, '&/.)/J (mphasis supplied

e cannot

conduct Inventory two at a time or three

at a time, only one. $ecause maybe,

you see, hes only one. 4aybe he did not

list it because of that so many evidence

confiscated.

!tty.


23/82

were seiKed and carefully inventoried by the raiding

team, none of the five police officers bothered to

point out that the weighing scale had not been

included in the inventory.

*he implausibility of the story put forward by

the police officers leads to no other conclusion than

that the weighing scale was introduced as an

afterthought in order to bolster the case againstappellant.

>ith the persistence of nagging doubts

surrounding the alleged discovery and seiKure of

the shabu, it is evident that the prosecution has failed

to discharge its burden of proof and overcome the

constitutional presumption of innocence. It is thus

not only the accuseds right to be freedD it is, even

more, this Courts constitutional duty to acuit

him. 2J !propos is the ruling in People v.

minnudin,1J vi*

*he Court strongly supports the campaign of the

government against drug addiction and commends

the efforts of our law enforcement officers against

those who would inflict this malediction upon our

people, especially the susceptible youth. $ut as

demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be

more so than the compulsions of the $ill of &"! 6/6o' a!" &!! o0 / o00&/' o0 %a & !o"&'/&o! /a/"&! a a/&%' y 'o%"'&, to the end that unreasonable searches andseiKures may not be made and that abuses may not be

committed (Corro v. Eising, 10 C

/38JD $ache Q Co. Phil.J, Inc. v. 321 /0JD By Mheytin v. Aillareal, 2 Phil. 33;

/2)J.;J(mphasis supplied

*here are, however, several well-recogniKed

e%ceptions to the foregoing rule. *hus, evidence

obtained through a warrantless search and seiKure

may be admissible under the following

circumstances ( search incident to a lawful arrestD

(2 search of a moving motor vehicleD (1 search in

violation of customs lawsD ( seiKure of evidence in

plain viewD and (8 when the accused himself waives

his right against unreasonable searches and seiKures.

0J

*o be valid, therefore, the seiKure of the items

enumerated in appellants 4otion for


24/82

>hich ( sic you released after the arrest,

after he was invited for investigation in

your office on #une , ///H

! Ges, sir./J

*he foregoing rationaliKations are

unacceptable. !dmittedly, neither the money nor the

car was particularly described in the search

warrant. In seiKing the said items then, the policeofficers were e%ercising their own discretion and

determining for themselves which items in appellants

residence they believed were proceeds of the crime

or means of committing the offense. *his is

absolutely impermissible. It bears reiterating that the

purpose of the constitutional reuirement that the

articles to be seiKed be particularly described in the

warrant is to limit the things to be seiKed to those,

and only those, particularly described in the search

warrant to leave the officers of the law with no

discretion regarding what articles they should seiKe.! search warrant is not a sweeping authority

empowering a raiding party to underta6e a fishing

e%pedition to seiKe and confiscate any and all 6inds

of evidence or articles relating to a crime.2)J

!t the same time, the raiding team characteriKed

the seiKure of the assorted documents, passports,

ban6boo6s, chec6s, chec6 writer, typewriter, dry

seals and stamp pads as seiKure of evidence in plain

view. 2J

Bnder the plain view doctrine, ob&ects falling inthe plain view of an officer who has a right to be in

the position to have that view are sub&ect to seiKure

and may be presented as evidence.22J *his Court had

the opportunity to summariKe the rules governing

plain view searches in the recent case of People v.

1oria, supra, to wit

*he plain view doctrine applies when the following

reuisites concur (a the law enforcement officer in

search of the evidence has a prior &ustification for an

intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular areaD (b the discovery of the evidence in

plain view is inadvertentD (c it is immediately

apparent to the officer that the item he observes may

be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise

sub&ect to seiKure. *he law enforcement officer must

lawfully ma6e an initial intrusion or properly be in a

position from which he can particularly view the

area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came

inadvertently across a piece of evidence

incriminating the accused. *he ob&ect must be open

to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.

(Bnderscoring suppliedD citations omitted21J

4easured against the foregoing standards, it is

readily apparent that the seiKure of the passports,

ban6boo6s, chec6s, typewriter, chec6 writer, dry

seals and stamp pads and other assorted documents

does not fall within the plain view e%ception. *he

assertions of the police officers that said ob&ects were

inadvertently seiKed within their plain view are mere

legal conclusions which are not supported by any

clear narration of the factual circumstances leading to

their discovery. P:2 !bulencia could not even

accurately describe how the raiding team came across

these items

*his $o% ! mar6ed as %hibit 5, in what

part of the room did you recover thisH

! >e recovered all the evidence within our

plain view, sir. *he evidence werescattered in his house. I cannot

remember whether $o% ! or $o% $, but

all the evidence were within our plain

view thats why we confiscated them,

sir.

>hat do you mean by plain viewH

! 7a6i6ita namin, sir. Gung 6itang-6ita

namin.

>here in the premises of $enny 5o did

you see all these documentsH! 5round floor and upstairs but mostly in

the ground floor, on the table and on the

floor, sir.

!tty.


25/82

brought to this Court, what call ( sic

your attention was these dry seals firstH

! >ell, actually the dry seals and the rubber

stamps were all placed atop the table

and as well as the documents because

the bo% where the documents were

placed are half opened. *hey are

opened actually thats why I saw them.

o, you first saw the rubber stamps andthe dry seals, is that correctH $ecause

they are atop the tableH

! Ges, sir.

!nd then later on you also saw the

documentsH

! Ges, sir its beside the table.

Contained in a bo% half openedH

! Ges, sir.

>hich did you touch first, the rubber

stamps, the dry seals or the documentsH

! I did not touch anything, I onlyinventoried that when the searching

team were through with what they are

doing. 7ow, all the evidence were

placed atop the dining table, located

also at the sala of the house or at the

dining area. *hen, thats when I as6ed

some of my co-members to place all

those document and the other

confiscated items atop the table also.28J

*he foregoing testimonies are clearly evasiveand do not establish how the police officers became

aware of the seiKed items which were allegedly

within their plain view.

Finally, it appears from the testimony of P:

FernandeK that the supposed illegal character of the

items claimed to have been seiKed within the plain

view of the policemen was not readily and

immediately apparent.

:


26/82

SO ORDERED.

4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,vs. DANILO SIM$AHON yBIATON, appellant .

D E C I S I O N

(NARES-SANTIAGO, J .

:n !pril 22, //8, the arrant 7o. /8-

)),J commanding the search in the premises of 00$ranch /, in Criminal Case 7o. /8-28.

*he facts as narrated by the trial court are as

follows

tripped of their immaterialities, the prosecutions

evidence tends to establish that about 1)) ocloc6 in

the early morning of !pril 21, //8, policeoperatives, together with the chairman of the

barangay which had &urisdiction over the place, and a

member of media, served earch >arrant 7o. /8-

)), %hibit F, issued by 9on. #udge >illiam $ayhon

on !pril 22, //8, upon 'anilo imbahon, 4aricar

4orgia, and Charito 4angulabnan at their residence

at 7o. 00


27/82

*hat in the early morning of !pril 21, //8, he was

sleeping, together with his wife and children, in one

of the rooms in their house located at 7o. 00

Court of 4anila, $ranch /, doc6eted as Criminal

Cases 7os. /8-282 to /8-288.

*he three accused were arraigned on #une 2,

//8 and respectively pleaded not guilty. *hereafter,

upon motion of the prosecution, the charges against

Charito 4angulabnan were dismissed on the ground

that she had no participation in the crimes charged

against her .1J *he cases were then consolidated and

&ointly tried against 'anilo imbahon and 4aricar

4orgia.!fter trial, the court a #uo rendered a

decision, the dispositive portion of which states

>9< C:B

!9*9< :< 7:* *9 PB$EIC !**:! 5


28/82

In all prosecutions for violation of *he

'angerous 'rugs !ct, the e%istence of the dangerous

drug is condition sine #ua non for conviction. *he

dangerous drug is the very corpus delictiof the crime.0J

>e find that the prosecutions evidence on the

identification of the mari&uana allegedly seiKed from

appellant is demonstrably wea6, unreliable andunconvincing. *he prosecution failed to identify that

the mari&uana presented in court was the very same

mari&uana allegedly seiKed from appellant.3J uch

failure to identify the corpus delicti of the crime

charged against the appellant or to establish the chain

of custody cannot but inure to the detriment of the

prosecutions case./J P:2 7elson stuaria testified

in this wise

FIC!E BEI'B4

>hat happened after you have searchedthe room of 'anilo imbahonH

>itness

! I found several specimens, maam.

FIC!E BEI'B4

I am showing to you a bric6 of flowering

tops dried leaves of mari&uana, will you

please tell this 9onorable Court what is

the relation of this bric6 of mari&uana to

the mari&uana which you recoveredfrom the room of 'anilo imbahonH

>itness

! *his is the same bric6 of mari&uana,

maam.

FIC!E BEI'B4

9ow do you 6now that this mari&uana was

recovered from the room of 'anilo

imbahonH

>itness

! It was mar6ed by the investigator, maam.

C:B


29/82

floors and rooms therein above-mentioned and

forthwith seiKe and ta6e possession of the above-

mentioned properties sub&ect of the offense and bring

to this Court said properties and persons to be dealt

with as the law direct. Gou are further directed to

submit return with in () days from today.

5IA7 B7'< 4G 9!7' !7' !E :F *9I

C:BIEEI!4 4.

$!G9:7%ecutive #udge

*he caption as well as the body of earch

>arrant 7o. /8-)) show that it was issued for more

than one offense for violation of

violation of P' 3;;. In /ambasen v. People, et al., it

was held

:n its face, the search warrant violates ection 1,


30/82

:n 28 #uly //;, 7ational $ureau of

Investigation (7$I !gent 'ominador amiano, #r.

(7$I !gent amiano filed several applications for

search warrants in the 9*9< *9 P*I*I:7

B*I:7 :F E!>D

2. . >9*9< P*I*I:7!!

T R%&! o0 Co/

*he petition has merit.

On Whether the Petition Raises Questions of

Law

4a%icorp assails this petition as defective sinceit failed to raise uestions of law. 4a%icorp insists

that the arguments petitioners presented are uestions

of fact, which this Court should not consider in a


31/82

spurious character by the other sideD whether or not

inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of

such gravity as to &ustify refusing to give said proofs

weight all these are issues of fact.

It is true that 4a%icorp did not contest the facts

alleged by petitioners. $ut this situation does not

automatically transform a%% issues raised in the

petition into uestions of law. *he issues must meetthe tests outlined in Paterno.

:f the three main issues raised in this petition

the legal personality of the petitioners, the nature of

the warrants issued and the presence of probable

cause only the first two ualify as uestions of law.

*he pivotal issue of whether there was probable

cause to issue the search warrants is a uestion of

fact. !t first glance, this issue appears to involve a

uestion of law since it does not concern itself with

the truth or falsity of certain facts. till, theresolution of this issue would reuire this Court to

inuire into the probative value of the evidence

presented before the e rule that the Court of !ppeals erred inreversing the


32/82

of a connection between the offense charged and the

place searched.

*he offense charged against 4a%icorp is

copyright infringement under ection 2/ of P' /

and unfair competition under !rticle 3/ of the


33/82

On Whether the 'earch Warrants are in the ature

of )eneral Warrants

! search warrant must state particularly the

place to be searched and the ob&ects to be seiKed. *he

evident purpose for this reuirement is to limit the

articles to be seiKed only to those particularly

described in the search warrant. *his is a protection

against potential abuse. It is necessary to leave theofficers of the law with no discretion regarding what

articles they shall seiKe, to the end that no

unreasonable searches and seiKures be committed.11J

In addition, under ection , ', ;y=oa/"', o!&o/ '/!' a!" "&';',6ooo6y&! a&!' a!" o/


34/82

aggravated by the fact that such appliances are

generally connected with the legitimate business of

renting out betama% tapes.1J

9owever, we find paragraph (c of the search

warrants lac6ing in particularity. Paragraph (c states

c undry items such as labels, bo%es, prints,

pac6ages, wrappers, receptacles,advertisements and other paraphernalia

bearing the copyrights and@or trademar6s

owned by 4IC

covers property used for personal or other purposes

not related to copyright infringement or unfair

competition. 4oreover, the description covers

property that 4a%icorp may have bought legitimately

from 4icrosoft or its licensed distributors. Paragraph

(c simply calls for the seiKure of all items bearingthe 4icrosoft logo, whether legitimately possessed or

not. 7either does it limit the seiKure to products used

in copyright infringement or unfair competition.

till, no provision of law e%ists which reuires

that a warrant, partially defective in specifying some

items sought to be seiKed yet particular with respect

to the other items, should be nullified as a whole. !

partially defective warrant remains valid as to the

items specifically described in the warrant.J !

search warrant is severable, the items not sufficiently

described may be cut off without destroying thewhole warrant.8J *he e%clusionary rule found in

ection 1(2 of !rticle III of the Constitution renders

inadmissible in any proceeding all evidence obtained

through unreasonable searches and seiKure. *hus, all

items seiKed under paragraph (c of the search

warrants, not falling under paragraphs a, b, d, e or f,

should be returned to 4a%icorp.

*HEREFORE, we P!

estern Police 'istrict applied for a search

warrant with the 5


35/82

B$ ;1 and *! 3)00, respectively. *he car and the

motorcycle happened to be par6ed near the house.

!s per the receipt of the property signed by

7uguid, the search of the house, the car and the

motorcycle yielded the following

*hat in the course of orderly search at the premises

of Cesar esson pistol, 4odel 1/mm with 7-!;1;13

with magaKines loaded with ammo, one ( loaded

magaKine of /mm and 1; rounds of .28 cal.

ammunition inside his drawer, one ( plastictransparent bag containing white crystalline

substance suspected to be 4ethamphetamine

9ydrochloride or habu and three (1 2-gauge

shotgun ammo. 9is personal car, a blac6 AI*!

bearing plate 7o. B$ ;1 par6ed beside his house

was also searchedJ in the presence of aJ $gy.

Magawad and found inside tuc6ed beneath the drivers

seat are three (1 sealed transparent plastic bags

containing white crystalline substance wrapped in a

mail envelope suspected to be 4ethamphetamine

9ydrochloride or habu and in his sport 9onda4otorcycle /))cc with plate 7o. *! 3)00 also yields

one ( transparent plastic sachet containing white

crystalline substance suspected to be

4ethamphetamine 9ydrochloride or habu at the

motorbi6e bac6 compartment.1J

!ccording to the Certification prepared by the

7$I Forensic Chemistry 'ivision, the crystalline

substances contained in the transparent plastic bags

which were seiKed in the respondents house, car and

motorcycle tested positive for methamphetaminehydrochloride.J

*hereafter, two Informations were filed with the


36/82

:n :ctober 8, ///, the C! rendered a

'ecision granting the petition and nullifying the

search warrant. *he decretal portion reads

>9

5

>!'PI* (i *9 B74I*!M!$E 4!77<

$G >9IC9 *9 I7A*I5!*I75 #B'5

C:7'BC*' ! PI*7 :F *9 F!C* *9!*

I7AI*!$EG #B*IFI *9 IB!7C :F

*9 !!*he petitioner avers that #udge EorenKo did not

delegate the determination of probable cause to

7uguid before issuing the sub&ect warrant. >hile she

allowed 7uguid to propound uestions on !le%is

*an, the same consisted of only three preliminaryuestions, and, as such, was inconseuential. *he

petitioner also asserts that the leading uestions

propounded by #udge EorenKo on *an does not

detract from the fact that searching uestions were

also propounded on the witnesses, and that based on

the entirety of such propounded uestions and the

latters answers, there was probable cause for the

issuance of a search warrant. *he petitioner

maintains that *an had personal 6nowledge of the

respondents delictual acts which were in violation of


37/82

reasonably believes that contraband or evidence of

criminal activity will be found therein, it is highly

doubtful that he possesses probable cause for a

warrant.8J

In issuing a search warrant, the #udge must

strictly comply with the reuirements of the

Constitution and the statutory provisions.;J

! search warrant shall not issue e%cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the

#udge after e%amination under oath or affirmation of

the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.0J $efore issuing a search warrant, the #udge must

personally e%amine, in the form of searching

uestions and answers, in writing and under oath, the

complainant and his witnesses he may produce, on

facts personally 6nown to them.3J

*he mandate of the #udge is for him to conduct a

full and searching e%amination of the complainantand the witnesses he may produce. In the absence of

a rule to the contrary, the determination of probable

cause cannot be delegated by the #udge, in part, or in

whole, regardless of the ualifications of the person

on whom reliance is placed. It is not permissible for

the #udge to share the reuired determination with

another ./J

*he searching uestions propounded to the

applicant and the witnesses must depend on a large

e%tent upon the discretion of the #udge. !lthough

there is no hard-and-fast rule as to how a #udge mayconduct his e%amination, it is a%iomatic that the said

e%amination must be probing and e%haustive and not

merely routinary, general, peripheral or perfunctory.2)J 9e must ma6e his own inuiry on the intent and

factual and legal &ustifications for a search warrant.

*he uestions should not merely be repetitious of the

averments not stated in the affidavits@deposition of

the applicant and the witnesses.2J If the #udge fails

to determine probable cause by personally e%amining

the applicant and his witnesses in the form of

searching uestions before issuing a search warrant,it constitutes grave abuse of discretion.22J

! search warrant proceeding is independent of

any criminal case. It is e% parte and non-adversarial.21J 9ence, the #udge acting on an application for a

search warrant is not bound to apply strictly the rules

of evidence. !s ruled in &rinegar v. United (tates2J

*he inappropriateness of applying the rules of

evidence as a criterion to determine probable cause is

apparent in the case of an application for a warrant before a magistrate, the conte%t in which the issue of

probable cause most freuently arises. *he ordinary

rules of evidence are generally not applied in e%

parte proceedings, partly because there is no

opponent to invo6e them, partly because the #udges

determination is usually discretionary, partly because

it is seldom that, but mainly because the system of

evidence rules was devised for the special control of

trials by &ury.

*he #udge is not proscribed, at all times, from

propounding leading uestions on the applicant and

the witnesses he may produce. Indeed, the #udge is

allowed to propound leading uestions if, for

instance, the witness is a child or is suffering from

mental illness, or if the uestions are preliminary or

clarificatory, or when there is difficulty in getting

direct and intelligent answers from the witness who is

ignorant.

$ut it can hardly be &ustifiably claimed that, by

propounding leading uestions only on the

complainant and the witnesses he may produce, the

#udge thereby conducts probing and e%haustive

e%amination. !fter all, a leading uestion is one

which suggests to the witness the answer which the

e%amining party desires.28J $y propounding leading

uestions, the #udge thereby puts the words or

answers in the mind of the witness to be echoed bac6.2;J

It bears stressing that the determination of the

e%istence of probable cause must be made by a

detached and neutral #udge.20J If he resorts to

propounding leading uestions to the applicant and

his witnesses to determine probable cause, the #udge

may be perceived as being partial, or even in cahoots

with the officers engaged in the often competitive

enterprise of ferreting out crime.23J

! search warrant is not thereby rendered invalidD

nor is a finding of probable cause proscribed merely because the #udge propounded leading uestions on

the applicant and the witnesses he produces. *he

entirety of the uestions propounded by the court and

the answers thereto must be considered and

calibrated by the #udge.

/he Judge llowed the

pplicant 0uguid to E%amine

/an, is 9itness, and :ailed

to Propound (earching uestions

*he transcript of the stenographic notes ta6enwhen 7uguid and *an testified is uoted, in toto,

infra

C:Bho is the applicant hereH

P:1 7B5BI'

I am the applicant, Gour 9onor.

(wearing the applicant -

C:B


38/82

! !t no. 2)); :rouieta t., ta. CruK,

4anila, Gour 9onor.

Is there any person there whom you

would want to searchH

! Ges, Gour 9onor.

Evidence 2nd Batch Cases

Documents

Transcript of Evidence 2nd Batch Cases