People

of the Philippines v. Modesto Tee FACTS: Modesto Tee is a businessman in Baguio City. He requested Danilo Abratique, a taxi driver, to help him transport alleged cigarettes. Abratique then took Tee to a building in Bakakeng, to store the cigarettes. When the cigarettes turned out to be marijuana, the owner of the building requested that they leave. Subsequently, Abratique drove Tee to La Trinidad to buy strawberries. However, they went to Sablan and loaded marijuana into the taxi. They went to the house of Abreau, Abratiques relative in Green Valley. Tee rented a room and stored marijuana there. Abreau was bothered with the marijuana being in her house, so she confided in her daughter. Her daughter then informed NBI Agent Fianza. Acting on this information, the NBI and the PNP did a stakeout at Abreaus place, since Tee was supposed to be coming. However, he did not. Fearing that the operation would be botched, the authorities asked Abreau if they could enter Tees room. Abreau consented. Thirteen (13) sacks of marijuana (336.96 kg) were in the room. NBI Agent Lising applied for a search warrant before Judge Reyes; Abratique was the witness. After questioning Abratique, Judge Reyes issued the warrant. It was served to Mr. Tee at home, in Green Valley. Twenty-six (26) boxes of marijuana were found (591.81 kg). A lab test confirmed that the items were marijuana. Two separate charges were filed against Tee. He filed a motion to quash the search warrant, on the ground that it was too general. He pointed out that the warrant only stated undetermined amount of marijuana. The motion was denied. During arraignment, he refused to plead. A plea of not guilty was entered by the court on his behalf. Regarding the firstinvolving the 591.81 kg of drugshe was convicted and sentenced to death. He was acquitted on the second. The RTC reasoned that the 336.96 kg of marijuana were seized illegally, hence cannot be admitted as evidence. ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant is valid RULING: The warrant is valid. The purpose of specifically describing things to be searched and seized is to enable the searching officers to identify the items to be searched and seized. This prevents them from committing unlawful search and seizure. Technical precision is not required. The description undetermined amount of marijuana is specific enough. The officers could readily identify the items to be searched and seized. Further, it was impossible to know the exact amount of marijuana beforehand.