PEOPLE V. MUSA - 217 SCRA 597 house.
Belarga frisked Musa in the living room but
FACTS:
Accused seeks the reversal of his conviction for
violating the Dangerous
Drugs Act. He was found guilty of selling ma
rijuana leaves to a police officer in an entrapment
operation.
HELD:
There is no doubt that the warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest
authorizes the arresting officer to make a search
upon incriminating the person of the
person arrested. Hence, in a buy-
bust operation conducted to entrap a drug-
pusher, the law enforcement agents may seized
the marked money
found on the person of the pusher immediately
after the arrest even without arrest or search
warrants. Furthermore, it may extend beyond to
include the premises or surroundings under his
immediate control.
Facts: A civilian informer gave the information that
Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in
Suterville, Zamboanga City. Sgt. Ani was ordered
by NARCOM leader T/Sgt. Belarga, to conduct
asurveillance and test buy on Musa. The civilian
informer guided Ani to Musa’s house and gave the
description of Musa. Ani was able to buy
one newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for P10.00.
The next day, a buy-bust was planned. Ani was to
raise his right hand if he successfully
buys marijuana from Musa. As Ani proceeded to
the house, the NARCOM team positioned
themselves about 90 to 100 meters away. From
his position, Belarga could see what was going on.
Musa came out of the house and asked Ani what he
wanted. Ani said he wanted more marijuana and
gave Musa the P20.00 marked money. Musa went
into the house and came back, giving Ani
two newspaperwrappers containing dried marijuana.
Ani opened and inspected it. He raised his right
hand as a signal to the other NARCOM agents, and
the latter moved in and arrested Musa inside the
did not find the marked money (gave it to his wife
who slipped away). T/Sgt. Belarga and Sgt. Lego
went to the kitchen and found a ‘cellophane colored
white and stripe hanging at the corner of the
kitchen.’ They asked Musa about its contents but
failed to get a response. So they opened it and found
dried marijuanaleaves inside. Musa was then placed
under arrest.
Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the plastic
bag and themarijuana inside it is unreasonable,
hence, inadmissible as evidence.
Held: Yes. It constituted unreasonable search
and seizure thus it may not be admitted as evidence.
The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to
a suspect’s lawful arrest, may extend beyond the
person of the one arrested to include the premises or
surroundings under his immediate control. Objects
in the ‘plain view’ of an officer who has the right to
be in the position to have that view are subject
to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The
‘plain view’ doctrine is usually applied where
a police officer is not searching for evidence against
the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes
across an incriminating object. It will not justify
the seizure of the object where the incriminating
nature of the object is not apparent from the ‘plain
view’ of the object.
In the case at bar, the plastic bag was not in the
‘plain view’ of the police. They arrested the accused
in the living room and moved intothe kitchen in
search for other evidences where they found
the plastic bag. Furthermore, the marijuana inside
the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from
the ‘plain view’ of said object.
Therefore, the ‘plain view’ does not apply.
The plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be
presented in evidence pursuant to Article III Section
3 (2) of the Constitution.
*** SC enumerated the elements of a valid
seizure based on the “plain view” doctrine, as
follows:
(a) Prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their
official duties;
(b) Inadvertent discovery of the evidence by
the police who have the right to be where
they are;
(c) The evidence must be immediately
apparent; and
(d) “Plain view” justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search.
The “plain view” doctrine may not be used to
launch unbridled searches and
indiscriminate seizures, nor to extend to a
general exploratory search made solely to
find evidence of defendant’s guilt. (nachura)
People vs. Figueroa
Facts:
The accused was charged with Illegal
Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions and and
of RA 645 and subsequently convicted by the RTC
Br. 23 of Trece Martires in Cavite.
While serving the warrant of arrest, the
officers noticed, strewn around, aluminum foil
packages of different sizes in the sala. Suspecting
thus the presence of "shabu" in the premises, the
arresting officers requested appellant, as well as his
brother and sister, to acquiesce to a search of the
house. The search yielded a .45 caliber pistol, a
magazine, seven live ammunitions, and a match box
containing an aluminum foil package with "shabu."
Confronted, Figueroa denied ownership of the
items. An inventory was conducted by the PC team,
attested to by Barangay Captain Bigornia, of the
seized items.
The accused questions the admissibility in
evidence of the firearm and confiscated ammunition
for it was discovered during a warrantless search.
Issue:
Was their an unlawful warrantless search
and seizure.
Held:
No. the search and seizure of the articles
sought is a valid being a search incidental to an
arrest.
The .45 caliber pistol, magazine and rounds
of ammunition were not unlawfully obtained. While
the SC might concede difficulty in readily accepting
the statement of the prosecution that the search was
conducted with consent freely given by appellant
and members of his household, it should be pointed
out, in any case, that the search and seizure was
done admittedly on the occasion of a lawful arrest.
A significant exception from the necessity
for a search warrant is when the search and seizure
is effected as an incident to a lawful arrest.
As a doctrine in jurisprudence, the
warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a
suspect's lawful arrest, may extend beyond the
person of the one arrested to include the premises or
surrounding under his immediate control. Objects in
the `plain view' of an officer who has the right to be
in the position to have that view are subject to
seizure and may be presented as evidence."
*** While serving warrant of arrest, police
officers searched the house and found a pistol, a
magazine and seven rounds of ammunition, the
seizure of the firearm and ammunition was held
lawful, because the objects seized were in plain
view of the officer who had the right to be in the
place where he was.
Caballes vs. Court of Appeals [GR 136292, 15
January 2002]
First Division, Puno (J): 4 concur
Facts: About 9:15 p.m. of 28 June 1989, Sgt.
Victorino Noceja and Pat. Alex de Castro, while on
a routine patrol in Barangay Sampalucan, Pagsanjan,
Laguna, spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered
with “kakawati” leaves. Suspecting that the jeep
was loaded with smuggled goods, the two police
officers flagged down the vehicle. The jeep was
driven by Rudy Caballes y Taiño. When asked what
was loaded on the jeep, he did not answer, but he
appeared pale and nervous. With Caballes’ consent,
the police officers checked the cargo and they
discovered bundles of 3.08 mm
aluminum/galvanized conductor wires exclusively
owned by National Power Corporation (NAOCOR).
The conductor wires weighed 700 kilos and valued
at P55,244.45. Noceja asked Caballes where the
wires came from and Caballes answered that they
came from Cavinti, a town approximately 8
kilometers away from Sampalucan. Thereafter,
Caballes and the vehicle with the high-voltage wires
were brought to the Pagsanjan Police Station.
Danilo Cabale took pictures of Caballes and the
jeep loaded with the wires which were turned over
to the Police Station Commander of Pagsanjan,
Laguna. Caballes was incarcerated for 7 days in the
Municipal jail. Caballes was charged with the crime
of theft in an information dated 16 October 1989.
During the arraignment, Caballes pleaded not guilty
and hence, trial on the merits ensued. On 27 April
1993, Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna
rendered judgment, finding Caballes, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of theft. In a
resolution dated 9 November 1998, the trial court
denied Caballes’ motion for reconsideration. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision
on 15 September 1998. Caballes appealed the
decision by certiorari.
Issue: Whether Caballes’ passive submission to the
statement of Sgt. Noceja that the latter “will look at
the contents of his vehicle and he answered in the
positive” be considered as waiver on Caballes’ part
on warrantless search and seizure.
Held: Enshrined in our Constitution is the
inviolable right of the people to be secure in their
persons and properties against unreasonable
searches and seizures, as defined under Section 2,
Article III thereof. The exclusionary rule under
Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution bars the
admission of evidence obtained in violation of such
right. The constitutional proscription against
warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute but
admits of certain exceptions, namely: (1)
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2)
seizure of evidence in plain view; (3) search of
moving vehicles; (4) consented warrantless search;
(5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk situations
(Terry search); and (7) exigent and emergency
circumstances. In cases where warrant is necessary,
the steps prescribed by the Constitution and
reiterated in the Rules of Court must be complied
with. In the exceptional events where warrant is not
necessary to effect a valid search or seizure, or
when the latter cannot be performed except without
a warrant, what constitutes a reasonable or
unreasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial
question, determinable from the uniqueness of the
circumstances involved, including the purpose of
the search or seizure, the presence or absence of
probable cause, the manner in which the search and
seizure was made, the place or thing searched and
the character of the articles procured. It is not
controverted that the search and seizure conducted
by the police officers was not authorized by a
search warrant. The mere mobility of these vehicles,
however, does not give the police officers unlimited
discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches
without warrants if made within the interior of the
territory and in the absence of probable cause.
Herein, the police officers did not merely conduct a
visual search or visual inspection of Caballes’
vehicle. They had to reach inside the vehicle, lift the
kakawati leaves and look inside the sacks before
they were able to see the cable wires. It thus cannot
be considered a simple routine check. Also,
Caballes’ vehicle was flagged down because the
police officers who were on routine patrol became
suspicious when they saw that the back of the
vehicle was covered with kakawati leaves which,
according to them, was unusual and uncommon.
The fact that the vehicle looked suspicious simply
because it is not common for such to be covered
with kakawati leaves does not constitute “probable
cause” as would justify the conduct of a search
without a warrant. In addition, the police authorities
do not claim to have received any confidential
report or tipped information that petitioner was
carrying stolen cable wires in his vehicle which
could otherwise have sustained their suspicion.
Philippine jurisprudence is replete with cases where
tipped information has become a sufficient probable
cause to effect a warrantless search and seizure.
Unfortunately, none exists in the present case.
Further, the evidence is lacking that Caballes
intentionally surrendered his right against
unreasonable searches. The manner by which the
two police officers allegedly obtained the consent of
Caballes for them to conduct the search leaves
much to be desired. When Caballes’ vehicle was
flagged down, Sgt. Noceja approached Caballes and
“told him I will look at the contents of his vehicle
and he answered in the positive.” By uttering those
words, it cannot be said the police officers were
asking or requesting for permission that they be
allowed to search the vehicle of Caballes. For all
intents and purposes, they were informing, nay,
imposing upon Caballes that they will search his
vehicle. The “consent” given under intimidating or
coercive circumstances is no consent within the
purview of the constitutional guaranty. In addition,
in cases where the Court upheld the validity of
consented search, it will be noted that the police
authorities expressly asked, in no uncertain terms,
for the consent of the accused to be searched. And
the consent of the accused was established by clear
and positive proof. Neither can Caballes’ passive
submission be construed as an implied acquiescence
to the warrantless search. Casting aside the cable
wires as evidence, the remaining evidence on record
are insufficient to sustain Caballes’ conviction. His
guilt can only be established without violating the
constitutional right of the accused against
unreasonable search and seizure.
***An object is in “plain view” if the object itself
is plainly exposed to sight. Where the object
seized is inside a closed package, the object is not
in plain view and, therefore, cannot be seized
without a warrant . However, if the package
proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive
configuration, its transparency, or if its contents
are obvious to an observer, then the contents are
in plain view and may be seized.
People v. Nuevas
GR No. 170233
22 February 2007
Tinga, J.
Police officers Fami and Cabling, during a
stationary surveillance and monitoring of illegal
drug trafficking in Olongapo City, came across
Jesus Nuevas, who they suspected to be carrying
drugs. Upon inquiry, Nuevas showed them a plastic
bag which contained marijuana leaves and bricks
wrapped in a blue cloth. He then informed the
officers of 2 other persons who would be making
marijuana deliveries.
The police officers then proceeded to where Nuevas
said his associates, Reynaldo Din and Fernando
Inocencio, could be located. Din was carrying a
plastic bag which contained marijuana packed in
newspaper and wrapped therein. When the police
officers introduced themselves, Din voluntarily
handed the plastic bag over to them. After the items
were confiscated, the police officers took the three
men to the police office.
Police officer Fami then revealed that when the
receipt of the evidence was prepared, all 3 accused
were not represented by counsel. He likewise
disclosed that he was the one who escorted all the
accused during their physical examination. He also
escorted all 3 to the Fiscal’s office where they were
informed of the charges against them.
The 3 were found guilty by the trial court, and the
case was automatically elevated to the CA for
review. However, Nuevas withdrew his appeal.
Thus, the case was considered closed and
terminated as to him. The CA affirmed the trial
court.
Issue:
W/N Din and Inocencio waived their right against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
Held:
NO. The search conducted in Nuevas’ case was
made with his consent. However, in Din’s case,
there was none. There is reason to believe that
Nuevas indeed willingly submitted the plastic bag
with the incriminating contents to the police officers.
It can be seen that in his desperate attempt to
exculpate himself from any criminal liability, he
cooperated with the police, gave them the plastic
bag, and even revealed his associates, offering
himself as an informant. His actuations were
consistent with the lamentable human inclination to
find excuses, blame others, and save oneself even at
the cost of others’ lives. Thus, the Court would have
affirmed Nuevas’ conviction had he not withdrawn
his appeal. On the other hand, with respect to the
search conducted in the case of Din, the Court finds
that no such consent had actually been given. The
police officers gave inconsistent, dissimilar
testimonies regarding the manner by which they got
hold of the plastic bag. Neither can Din’s silence at
the time be construed as an implied acquiescence to
the warrantless search. Thus, the prosecution failed
to clearly show that Din intentionally surrendered
his right against unreasonable searches. On the
other hand, Inocencio’s supposed possession of the
dried marijuana leaves was sought to be shown
through his act of looking into the plastic bag that
Din was carrying. The act attributed to Inocencio is
insufficient to establish illegal possession of the
drugs or even conspiracy to illegally possess the
same. The prosecution failed to show by convincing
proof that Inocencio knew of the contents of the bag
and that he conspired with Din to possess the illegal
items.
Our Constitution states that a search and seizure
must be carried through or with a judicial warrant;
otherwise, such search and seizure becomes
“unreasonable” and any evidence obtained
therefrom is inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. The exceptions are:
(1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest;
(2) Search of evidence in “plain view”;
(3) Search of a moving vehicle;
(4) Consented warrantless search;
(5) Customs search;
(6) Stop and frisk; and
(7) Exigent and emergency circumstances.
Elements of search of evidence in plain view:
(e) Prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties;
(f) Inadvertent discovery of the evidence by the
police who have the right to be where they
are;
(g) The evidence must be immediately apparent;
and
(h) “Plain view” justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search.
In the instances where a warrant is not necessary to
effect a valid search or seizure, or when the latter
cannot be performed except without a warrant, what
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or
seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable
from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved,
including the purpose of the search and seizure, the
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner
in which the search and seizure was made, the place
or thing searched and the character of the articles
procured.
A search incidental to a lawful arrest is sanctioned
by the Rules of Court. The arrest, however, must
precede the search; the process cannot be reversed.
Nevertheless, a search substantially
contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the
arrest if the police have probable cause to make the
arrest at the outset of the search.
An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to
sight. Where the object seized was inside a closed
package, the object itself is not in plain view and
therefore cannot be seized without a warrant.
However, if the package proclaims its contents,
whether by its distinctive configuration, its
transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an
observer, then the contents are in plain view and
may be seized.
It must be seen that the consent to the search was
voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal
detention and search—the consent must be
unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given,
uncontaminated by duress or coercion.
The consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred,
but must be shown by clear and convincing
evidence. It is the State which has the burden of
proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the
necessary consent was obtained and that it was
freely and voluntarily given.
In case of consented searches or waiver of the
constitutional guarantee against obstrusive searches,
it is fundamental that to constitute a waiver, it must
first appear that:
(1) The right exists;
(2) The person involved had knowledge, either
actual or constructive, of the existence of
such right; and
(3) The said person had an actual intention to
relinquish such right.
Obiter:
To behold is not to hold.
People vs Salanguit
Facts:
Roberto Salanguit y Ko guilty of violation of §16 of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and sentencing
him accordingly to suffer imprisonment ranging
from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional, as maximum, and of §8 of
the same law and sentencing him for such violation
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
pay a fine of P700,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. Q-95-64357, the
information alleged:
That on or about the 26th day of December 1995, in
Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly
possess and/or use 11.14 grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) a
regulated drug, without the necessary license and/or
prescription therefor, in violation of said law.
In Criminal Case No. Q-95-64358, the
information charged:
That on or about the 26th day of December 1995, in
Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused not
being authorized by law to possess or use any
prohibited drug, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession
and under his custody and control 1,254 grams of
Marijuana, a prohibited drug.
On December 26, 1995, Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied
for a warrant[5] in the Regional Trial Court, Branch
90, Dasmariñas, Cavite, to search the residence of
accused-appellant Robert Salanguit y Ko on
Binhagan St., Novaliches, Quezon City. He
presented as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua, who
testified that as a poseur-buyer, he was able to
purchase 2.12 grams of shabu from accused-
appellant. The sale took place in accused-
appellant’s room, and Badua saw that the shabu was
taken by accused-appellant from a cabinet inside his
room. The application was granted, and a search
warrant was later issued by Presiding Judge Dolores
L. Español.
At about 10:30 p.m. of December 26, 1995, a
group of about 10 policemen, along with one
civilian informer, went to the residence of accused-
appellant to serve the warrant.[6]
The police operatives knocked on accused-
appellant’s door, but nobody opened it. They heard
people inside the house, apparently panicking. The
police operatives then forced the door open and
entered the house.[7]
After showing the search warrant to the
occupants of the house, Lt. Cortes and his group
started searching the house.[8] They found 12 small
heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing a
white crystalline substance, a paper clip box also
containing a white crystalline substance, and two
bricks of dried leaves which appeared to be
marijuana wrapped in newsprint[9] having a total
weight of approximately 1,255 grams.[10] A receipt
of the items seized was prepared, but the accused-
appellant refused to sign it.[11]
After the search, the police operatives took accused-
appellant with them to Station 10, EDSA,
Kamuning, Quezon City, along with the items they
had seized.
PO3 Duazo requested a laboratory examination
of the confiscated evidence.[13] The white crystalline
substance with a total weight of 2.77 grams and
those contained in a small box with a total weight of
8.37 grams were found to be positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride. On the other
hand, the two bricks of dried leaves, one weighing
425 grams and the other 850 grams, were found to
be marijuana.[14]
For the defense, accused-appellant testified in
his own behalf. His testimony was corroborated by
his mother-in-law, Soledad Arcano.
Accused-appellant testified that on the night of
December 26, 1995, as they were about to leave
their house, they heard a commotion at the gate and
on the roof of their house. Suddenly, about 20 men
in civilian attire, brandishing long firearms, climbed
over the gate and descended through an opening in
the roof.[15]
When accused-appellant demanded to be
shown a search warrant, a piece of paper inside a
folder was waved in front of him. As accused-
appellant fumbled for his glasses, however, the
paper was withdrawn and he had no chance to read
it.[16]
Accused-appellant claimed that he was ordered
to stay in one place of the house while the
policemen conducted a search, forcibly opening
cabinets and taking his bag containing money, a
licensed .45 caliber firearm, jewelry, and canned
goods.[17]
The policemen left at around 12:30 a.m. of
December 27, 1995, and, after putting handcuffs on
accused-appellant, took him with them to the
NARCOM on EDSA, Quezon City, where
accused-appellant was detained.[18]
Accused-appellant’s mother-in law, Soledad Arcano,
corroborated his testimony. Arcano testified that
the policemen ransacked their house, ate their food,
and took away canned goods and other valuables
The Search Warrant issued by the judge
states:
“It appearing to the
satisfaction of the undersigned after
examining under oath SR. INSP. Rodolfo
Aguilar, PNP and his witness SPO1
Edmund Badua, PNP, that there is probable
cause to believe that Robert Salanguit has in
his possession and control in his premises
Binhagan St., San Jose, Quezon City as
shown in Annex “A”, the properties to wit:
UNDETERMINED QUANTITY OF
SHABU AND DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.”
Issue:
Considering that during the deposition-
taking, no witness testified on anything about drug
paraphernalia, should the warrant be nullified for
having been issued without probable cause?
Held:
No. The fact that there was no probable
cause to support the application for the seizure of
drug paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion
that the search warrant is void. This fact would be
material only if drug paraphernalia were seized by
the police. But none was taken by virtue of the
search warrant. If at all, therefore, the search
warrant is void only insofar as it authorized the
seizure of drug paraphernalia, but it is valid as to
the seizure of shabu about which evidence was
presented showing probable cause as to its existence.
It would be a drastic remedy indeed if a warrant,
which was issued on probable cause and
particularly describing the items to be seized on the
basis thereof, is to be invalidated in toto because the
judge erred in authorizing a search for other items
not supported by the evidence.
c.)The search warrant must particularly
describe the place or the person to be
searched and the things to be seized;.
The rule is that a description of the place to be
searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant
can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify
the place intended to be searched. (Cupcupin vs.
People 392 SCRA 203, 216-217 [2002]; People vs.
Francisco, 387 SCRA 569, 577 [2002]; People vs.
Salanguit, 356 SCRA 690, 697-698 [2001]. But the
place to be searched cannot be amplified or
modified by the police officers’ own personal
knowledge of thje premises, or the evidence they
adduced in support of their application for the
warrant (People vs. CA, 291 SCRA 400, 412 [1998]
In a case, the search warrant was issued by the trial
court authorizing the search of shabu and
paraphernalia at No. 122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan
City. The application for search warrant was
accompanied by a sketch of the area. The search
was actually conducted at No. 120 Hizon St.,
Caloocan City, where shabu and shabu
paraphernalia were seized. In nullifying the search
warrant, the Supreme Court held that the controlling
subject of search warrants is the place indicated in
the warrant itself and not the place identified by the
police. Consequently, all the items seized during the
illegal search are prohibited from being used in
evidence. (People vs. Francisco, 387 SCRA 569,
578 and 580 [2002]).
However, in a case, two search warrants were
issued for the immediate search of the residence of
petitioner at Int. David Santos, C. Arellano St.,
Malabon, Metro Manila, including the rooms
located therein for the seizure of prohibited drugs
and assorted firearms. A team of NBI agents raided
the house of petitioner located at Int. David Santos
and C. Arellano Sts., Malabon, Metro Manila,
which consisted of a 2-storey house made up of
strong materials and a workshop room at the ground
floor made up of light materials where packs of
shabu and firearms were found. Against the
petitioner’s claim that the search warrants failed to
particularly describe the place to be searched
because there are two houses located in the address
stated in the warrants, it was held that the workshop
room where the packs of shabu were found is
actually an integral part of petitioner’s residence.
Hence, it cannot be argued that there are two houses
in the address stated in the warrants and that the
same failed to particularly describe the place to be
searched. (People vs. Cupcupin, 392 SCRA 203
[2002]).
In another case, two search warrants were issued
namely: No. 20-82 [a] and No. 20-83 [b]. Upon
perusal, the warrants immediately disclosed an
obvious typographical error. The application in said
case was for seizure of subversive materials
allegedly concealed in two places: one at “No. 19,
Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City” and the other , at
“784 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue,
Quezon City”. Objection was made to the execution
of Warrant No. 20-82 [b] at “784 Units C & D,
RMS Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City”
because both search warrants apparently indicated
the same address (No. 19, Road 3, Project 6,
Quezon City) as the place where the supposedly
subversive material was hidden. This was error, of
course but the error was obviously typographical,
for it was absurd to suppose that the Judge had
issued two warrantsfor the search of only one place.
Adverting to the fact that the application for the
search warrants specified two distinct addresses,
and that in fact the address “784 Units C & D, RMS
Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City” appeared
in the opening paragraph of Warrant 20-82 [b], the
Supreme Court concluded that evidently, this was
the address the Judge intended to be searched when
he issued the second warrant (No. 20-82 [b]; and to
clear up the ambiguity caused by the obviously
typographical error,” the officer executing the
warrant could consult the records in the official
court file. (Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, AFP, 133
SCRA 800 [1984])
And in another case, the search warrant exactly
reproduced the officers’ description of the place in
their application and in the affidavit appended
thereto as follows: premises located at Abigail
Variety Store Apot. 1207, Area F. Bagong Buhay
Avenue, Sapang Palay, San Jose del Monte,
Bulacan. The search warrant was made more
restrictive by the Judge’s admonition that the search
be “limited only to the premises herein described.”
At the time of the application, there were at least
five distinct places in the area involved: the store
known as the “Abigail’s Variety Store” and four
separate and independent residential apartment units.
Admittedly, the police officers did not intend to
search all five places, but of only one of the
residential units in the rear of Abigail’s Variety
Store: that immediately next to the store (Number 1).
Thereafter, a search was made not on Abigail’s
Variety Store but on Apartment No. 1 resulting to
the arrest of Pakistani nationals and seizure of
explosives and firearms. The Supreme Court
sustained the ruling of the trial court declaring
inadmissible in evidence the items seized under the
warrant. (People vs. CA, 291 SCRA 400, 412
[1998]; see also Paper Industries Corp. vs.
Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253, 273 [1999])
And still in another case, the application for search
warrant was accompanied by a sketch of the
compound at 516 San Jose dela Montana St.,
Mabilo Cebu City. The sketch indicated the 2-storey
residential house of private respondent with a large
“X” enclosed in a square. Within the same
compound are residences of other people,
workshops, offices, factories and warehouses. With
this sketch as the guide, it could have been very
easy to describe the residential house of private
respondent with sufficient particularity so as to
segregate it from the other buildings or structures
inside the same compound. But the search warrant
merely indicated the address of the compound
which is 516 San Jose de la Montana St., Mabilo,
Cebu City. It was held that this description of the
place to be searched is too general and does not
pinpoint the specific house of private respondent.
Thus, the inadequacy of the description of the
residence of private respondent sought to be
searched has characterized the questioned search
warrant as a general warrant, which is violative of
the constitutional requirement. Consequently, when
search was conducted in a warehouse st Lot No. 38
within the same compound while respondent’s
house is actually located at Lot No. 41, the
searching team went beyond the scope of the search
warrant. (People vs. Estrada, 296 SCRA 383, 400-
401 [1998]).

***the peace officers entered the dwelling armed

with a search warrant for the seizure of shabu
and drug paraphernalia. In the course of the
search, they (presumably) found the shabu first,
and then came upon an article wrapped in
newspaper which turned out to be marijuana.
On the issue of whether the marijuana may be
validly seized, the SC said 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. (Note that the marijuana was wrapped in
newspaper which was not transparent.)