Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Fifth Judicial Region
Branch 55
Irosin, Sorsogon

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 2854

Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 11 of
R.A. 9165
-versus-

EMMANUELLE GARROTE y
FURTON,
Accused.
x--------------------------------------x

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 2855

Plaintiff, For: Violation of P.D. 1866 as
amended by R.A. 9516
-versus-

EMMANUELLE GARROTE y
FURTON,
Accused.
x--------------------------------------x

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

ACCUSED, represented by the Public Attorney’s Office, through the

undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully moves
for the suppression of the evidence obtained under Search Warrant No 2016-01
dated March 31, 2016 on the following considerations:

GROUND FOR THE MOTION

I. THE SEARCH MADE WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN THE

PRESENCE OF THE LAWFUL OCCUPANTS OF THE
PREMISES SEARCHED.

II. THE ITEMS SEIZED WERE NOT IMMEDIATELY

TURNED OVER TO THE HONORABLE COURT WHICH
ISSUED SEARCH WARRANT NO. 2016-01.

DISCUSSION

Prefatory
 As a guarantee that every individual’s sacrosanct right to personal liberty
and security of homes may be protected against unreasonable searches and
seizures, Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Complementing this provision is the exclusionary rule embodied in

Section 3(2) of the same article which provides:

Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section

shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

The purpose of the constitutional provision against unlawful searches

and seizures is to prevent violations of private security in person and property,
and unlawful invasion of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law acting
under legislative or judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such
usurpations when attempted.1

It is from the above legal postulates and other concomitant rules and
legal provisions that the validity of the execution of the search warrant must be
tested. Thus, where irregularities abound in execution of the warrant, any and
all evidences obtained in the place to be searched shall be inadmissible as
evidence for being the fruit of the poisonous tree.

The search made was not conducted in the presence

of the lawful occupants of the premises searched.

In this regard, it is humbly submitted that the execution of Search

Warrant No. 2016-01 is rife with irregularities for which reason the same has
led to a violation of the accused’s constitutional right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures. The following disquisitions serve to
illustrate the point:

In the Judicial Affidavit of Arrest SPO2 Honesto L. Hubilla,2 he

categorically admitted that while PO3 Rodolfo G. Latonero Jr. and PO3 Ruel
1 Silva v. Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Negros, Oriental, Branch XXXIII, G.R. No. 81756, 21
October 1991, 203 SCRA 140, 144, citing Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637 (1946).
2 Herein attached as Annex “1” is a copy of the Judicial Affidavit of Arrest of SPO2 Honesto L. Hubilla.
H. Asiado conducted the search inside the bedroom of the Accused, the latter,
being the lawful occupant of the premise being searched, was at the sala/living
room while being guarded by SPO2 Honesto L. Hubilla. Thus, Q&A No. 4 of
his Judicial Affidavit Of Arrest states:

04. T: Ano naman ang inyong ginawa ng matapos ang pulong ninyo sa
loob ng inyong himpilan?
S: Eksaktong 7:50 ng umaga ng ika-01 ng Abril 2016 matapos ang
aming pinagpulongang plano ay agad naming pinuntahan ng
kasamahan kong pulis sa pamumuno ni P/INSP JOSE ARNEL G.
GERONGA ang nasabing lugar sakay ng aming dalawang
Patrol Car para isagawa ang napagplanuhang pagsasagawa ng
search sa bahay ni Emmanuelle Garrote y Furton at dumating
kami sa nasabing lugar mga bandang alas 8:00 ng umaga Abril
01, 2016 sa bahay mismo ni Emmanuelle Garrote y Furton kami
ay kumatok sa pintuan at kusang loob na binuksan ni
Emmanuelle Garrote y Furton ang pinto at doon binasahan ng
kasama kong pulis na si PO3 Rodolfo G. Latonero, Jr. ng search
warrant sa sala ng bahay na sa bandang unahan pag pasok sa
main door bandang kanang bahagi ay ang kwarto na subject ng
search warrant at doon isinagawa ang pagsisiyasat ng aming
mga imbistegador na sina PO3 Rodolfo G. Latonero, Jr. at PO3
Ruel H. Asiado at habang nasa harap ko at nagsisilbing bantay
kay Emmanuelle Garrote y Furton sa sala na nakikita din kami
ng mga nasabing testigo at iba kong kasamahan sa labas ng
kanyang bahay.

This observation that the search was not conducted in the presence of the
accused as the lawful occupant of the premise searched is corroborated by the
very testimony of one of the searching and officers by the name of SPO3
Rodolfo Gotis Latonero, Jr.3 who explicitly admitted in his Judicial Affidavit
Of Arrest that the search was conducted merely in the presence of the
witnesses Brgy. Chairman Jesus G. Gabito, Brgy. Kagawad Jesus Garados and
Media Representative Jerald H. Doringo of WOW FM Matnog, Sorsogon
Radio Station. Thus, his Judicial Affidavit Of Arrest states:

04. T: Ano naman ang inyong ginawa ng matapos ang pulong ninyo sa
loob ng inyong himpilan?
S: Eksaktong 7:50 ng umaga ng ika-01 ng Abril 2016 matapos ang
aming pinagpulongang plano ay agad naming pinuntahan ng
kasamahan kong pulis sa pamumuno ni P/INSP JOSE ARNEL G.
GERONGA ang nasabing lugar sakay ng aming dalawang
Patrol Car para isagawa ang napagplanuhang pagsasagawa ng
search sa bahay ni Emmanuelle Garrote y Furton at dumating
kami sa nasabing lugar mga bandang alas 8:00 ng umaga Abril
01, 2016 sa bahay mismo ni Emmanuelle Garrote y Furton kami
3 Herein attached as Annex “2” is a copy of the Judicial Affidavit of SPO3 Rodolfo Gotis Latonero, Jr..
 ay kumatok sa pintuan at kusang loob na binuksan ni
Emmanuelle Garrote y Furton ang pinto at doon binasahan ng
kasama ko ng dala kong search warrant sa sala ng bahay para
siyasatin ang loob ng kanyang kwarto na subject ng search
warrant na sabandang unahan pag pasok mula sa main door
bandang kanang bahagi ng kanilang bahay at doon isinagawa
namin ni PO3 Ruel H. Asiado ang pagsisiyasat sa loob ng
kwarto na nakasaad sa search warrant sa harapan mismo ng
mga testigo na sina Barangay Kapitan Jesus G. Gabito,
Barangay Kagawad Jesus Garados at Media representative na si
Jerald H. Doringo ng WOW FM Matnog, Sorsogon Radio
Station.

From the foregoing testimonies of both SPO2 Honesto L. Hubilla and

PO3 Rodolfo Gotis Latonero, Jr., it is clear that the search was never conducted
in the presence of the accused as the lawful occupant of the premise searched –
and this, because during the time of the search, the Accused was in the living
room being guarded by SPO3 Hubilla.

In this regard, Section 8 of Rule 126 provides that:

Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence

of two witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premise
shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or
any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

This requirement cannot be brushed aside lightly as the same goes into
the very validity of the search conducted. As explained by the Supreme Court
in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Benny Go:4

As pointed out earlier, the members of the raiding team categorically

admitted that the search of the upper floor, which allegedly resulted in
the recovery of the plastic bag containing the shabu, did not take place
in the presence of either the lawful occupant of the premises, i.e.
appellant (who was out), or his son Jack Go (who was handcuffed to a
chair on the ground floor). Such a procedure, whereby the witnesses
prescribed by law are prevented from actually observing and
monitoring the search of the premises, violates both the spirit and
letter of the law:

Furthermore, the claim of the accused-appellant that the marijuana was

planted is strengthened by the manner in which the search was
conducted by the police authorities. The accused-appellant was seated
at the sala together with Sgt. Yte when they heard someone in the
4 G.R. No 144639, Sept. 12, 2003.
kitchen uttered ito na. Apparently, the search of the accused-appellants
house was conducted in violation of Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court which specifically provides that no search of a house, room or
any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful
occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the
latter, in the presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality. This requirement is mandatory
to ensure regularity in the execution of the search warrant. Violation of
said rule is in fact punishable under Article 130 of the Revised Penal
Code.

That the raiding party summoned two barangay kagawads to witness the
search at the second floor is of no moment. The Rules of Court clearly
and explicitly establishes a hierarchy among the witnesses in whose
presence the search of the premises must be conducted. Thus, Section
8, Rule 126 provides that the search should be witnessed by two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality
only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any
member of his family. Thus, the search of appellants residence clearly
should have been witnessed by his son Jack Go who was present at the
time. The police officers were without discretion to substitute their
choice of witnesses for those prescribed by the law.

xxx

The search conducted by the police officers of appellants residence is

essentially no different from that in People v. Del Rosario where this
Court observed:

We thus entertain serious doubts that the shabu contained in a small

canister was actually seized or confiscated at the residence of accused-
appellant. In consequence, the manner the police officers conducted the
subsequent and much-delayed search is highly irregular. Upon barging
into the residence of accused-appellant, the police officers found him
lying down and they immediately arrested and detained him in the living
room while they searched the other parts of the house. Although they
fetched two persons to witness the search, the witnesses were called in
only after the policemen had already entered accused-appellants
residence (pp. 22-23, tsn, December 11, 1991), and, therefore, the
policemen had more than ample time to plant the shabu. Corollary to the
Constitutional precept that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved (Sec. 14 (2),
Article III, Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines) is the rule
that in order to convict an accused the circumstances of the case must
exclude all and each and every hypothesis consistent with his innocence
 (People vs. Tanchoco, 76 Phil. 463 [1946]; People vs. Constante, 12
SCRA 653 [1964]; People vs. Jara, 144 SCRA 516 [1986]). The facts of
the case do not rule out the hypothesis that accused-appellant is
innocent. (Emphasis supplied)

Applying the foregoing in the present case, considering that the search
conducted by the searching officers inside the Accused’s bedroom while he
was in the living room being guarded clearly establishes the fact that the search
was never conducted in his presence, being the lawful occupant thereto, the
search itself was invalid. Neither do the affidavits executed by the above-
mentioned police officers indicate that the search was conducted in the
presence of a member of the Accused’s family.

In addition, while SPO3 Latonero, Jr. declares that the search was
conducted in the presence of witnesses he mentioned, there is serious doubt
however as to whether these witnesses were actually inside the room being
searched the whole time that the search was conducted. This is so because as
stated by SPO2 Honesto L. Hubilla in his Judicial Affidavit, said witnesses, as
well as other police officers, were outside the house when the search was
conducted. Thus, under paragraph 4 of his Judicial Affidavit, SPO2 Hubilla,
under oath, declared:

…doon isinagawa ang pagsisiyasat ng aming mga imbistegador na sina

PO3 Rodolfo G. Latonero, Jr. at PO3 Ruel H. Asiado at habang nasa
harap ko at nagsisilbing bantay kay Emmanuelle Garrote y Furton sa
sala na nakikita din kami ng mga nasabing testigo at iba kong
kasamahan sa labas ng kanyang bahay.

Clearly then, it can be concluded that at the very least, when the search
first began, the witnesses were still outside the house, for which reason, for a
certain period of time, the searching officers were able to conduct their search
unobserved either by the accused as the lawful occupant, or the witnesses
earlier mentioned.

For these irregularities, the search is thus rendered defective, illegal and
void, for which reason, all evidences obtained during said search should be
suppressed for being the fruit of the poisonous tree.

The items seized were not immediately turned over to the

Honorable Court which issued Search Warrant No. 2016-01

One of the requirements under the Rules of Court which must be

complied with after the termination of the search is that the search team must
immediately make a return of the search warrant together with the items seized
to the court which issued said warrant. This procedure is mandatory as ruled by
the Supreme Court in Tenorio vs. CA,5 to wit:

The duty of petitioner Tambungan to deliver the items seized by

him to the court which issued the search warrant is mandatory in
character. This is evident by the use in the rule of the word must.
The rule is not merely a piddling procedural rule. The
requirement is to preclude substitution of the items seized by
interested parties or the tampering thereof, or the loss of such
goods due to the negligence of the officers effecting the seizure or
their deliberate acts.

Thus, a violation of this rule renders the validity the search and seizure
null and void as absence of prompt return and delivery compromises the very
integrity of the items seized. Thus, in SEC et. al. vs. Mendoza, et. al,6 the
Supreme Court ruled:

Parenthetically, it appears from its investigation report that the

SEC kept the seized documents and articles for months rather than
immediately turn them over to the Makati RTC. Justifying its
action, the SEC said that it still needed to study the seized items.
Evidently, it wanted to use them to build up a case against the
respondents, unmindful of its duty to first turn them over to the
court. Clearly, SECs arbitrary action compromised the integrity
of the seized documents and articles.

As also ruled in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Castillo:7

Likewise, the police officers failed to deliver the seized

items to the court which issued the search warrant. It was
commanded in the search warrant that the seized articles be
brought to the court which issued it to be dealt with as the law
directs. Under the rule, the seized property must be delivered by
the officer to the judge who issued the warrant. It must be
accompanied with a true inventory thereof duly verified. The
police officers all testified that the confiscated shabu was brought
to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Faced with the
same circumstance, we held in People vs. Gesmundo.

On the issue of non-delivery of the seized marijuana to the

court, the trial court held that it takes judicial notice of the usual
practice of the San Pablo City police force of retaining possession
of confiscated specimens suspected of being marijuana by
5 G.R. No. 110604, October 10, 2003.
6 G.R. No. 170425, April 23, 2012.
7 G.R. No. 153254, September 30, 2004.
 immediately forwarding them to the NBI or to an NBI accredited
physician for preliminary examination and/or laboratory
examination before filing a case with the city prosecutors office.
The mere tolerance by the trial court of such a practice does not
make it right. Clearly, such practice violates the mandatory
requirements of the law and defeats the very purpose for which
they were enacted. Speculations as to the probability of tampering
with the evidence cannot then be avoided.

The trial judge cites the case of Yee Sue Koy, et al vs.
Mariano Almeda , et al. (70 Phil 141) to justify the retention by
the police and the NBI of the custody of the allegedly confiscated
specimens. While in said decision, this court recognized the fact
that the objects seized were retained by the agents of the Anti-
Usury Board, instead of being turned over to the Justice of the
Peace of Sagay, yet the Court also held that it was for the reason
that the custody of said agents is the custody of the issuing officer
or court, the retention having been approved by the latter. Thus,
approval by the court which issued the search warrant is
necessary for the retention of the property seized by the police
officers; and only then will their custody be considered custody of
the court. Absent such approval, the police officers have no
authority to retain possession of the marijuana and more so, to
deliver the property to another agency, like the NBI.

As further explained in the same case of SEC et. al. vs. Mendoza, et. al.,
failure to comply with such procedure is a ground for the quashal of the
warrant or the suppression of evidence obtained. Thus, the Supreme Court
ruled:

Clearly, although the search warrant in this case did not target
the residence or offices of Mendoza, et al., they were entitled to
file with the Makati RTC a motion to suppress the use of the
seized items as evidence against them for failure of the SEC and
the NBI to immediately turn these over to the issuing court.

From the foregoing, the following mandatory requirements must thus be

observed:

a. The warrant, together with the items seized, must immediately be

turned over/returned to the Court which issued the search warrant;
b. The return must be accompanied by an inventory of the items seized,
duly verified;
c. If the police officers desire to retain the properties seized, an
authorization to that effect must be obtained from the Court which
issued the warrant;
 d. Where no immediate return is made of the search warrant and the
items seized pursuant thereto, the person against whom the search
warrant has been issued, and against whom the items seized shall be
used as evidence, is entitled to file a motion to suppress evidence in
the proper court.

Here, a perusal of the records of the present case reveals that the police
officers did not immediately make a return of the search warrant, together with
the evidences seized, to the Honorable Court which issued said warrant.

To elucidate, as can be gleaned from the records, the search began

around 8:00 AM on April 1, 2016 and was concluded at around 8:40 AM of the
same date. Upon conclusion of the search, PO3 Ruel H. Asiado turned over the
seized items to PO3 Rodolfo G. Lotanero for evidence inventory, as evidenced
by the Chain of Custody Form herein attached as Annex “3”.

Thereafter, a Request for Laboratory Examination was made by P/INSP

Jose Arnel G. Geronga for the following items allegedly seized:

a. Two pieces of small heat sealed transparent plastic sachets with

marking RGL-1 04/01/16 and RGL-2 04/01/16 containing white
crystalline substance suspected to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as shabu;
b. Three pieces small heat sealed transparent plastic sachets with
markings RGL-1A 04/01/16, RGL-1B 04/01/16 and RGL-1C
04/01/16 containing suspected marijuana dried leaves.

Herein attached as Annex “4” is a copy of the Request for Laboratory

Examination above-mentioned.

At around 4:30 PM of April 1, 2016, the specimens above-mentioned

were turned over by PO3 Rodolfo G. Latonero to PCI Josephine M. Clemen of
PCL05, Camp Ola, Legazpi City as evidenced by the Chain of Custody Form
herein attached as Annex “5.” The examination of said specimens was
completed at 6:30 PM of the same date as evidenced by a copy of the
Chemistry Report No. D-223-2016 herein attached as Exhibit “6”.

On the same day of April 1, 2016, P/INSP Geronga made a Request for
Ordnance Determination of one piece of hand grenade allegedly recovered
during the search as evidenced by a copy of the said request which is herein
attached as Exhibit “7”. On even date, P/INSP Geronga also made a Request
for Determination of Explosive Substance allegedly obtained from the hand
grenade previously mentioned as evidenced by a copy of said request which is
herein attached as Exhibit “8”. Subsequently, a Certification dated April 1,
2016 was issued by the 5th Ordnance Disposal Team of Campe General
Simeon A. Ola, Legazpi City to the effect that the grenade thus recovered has
its complete fusing assembly and explosive filler. IN the same Certification, it
is stated that the hand grenade aforementioned is in the custody of the element
of Sta. Magdalena Municipal Police Station, Sorsogon, Sorsogon for
safekeeping and evidentiary purposes. Herein attached as Exhibit “9” is a copy
of said certification.

On April 4, 2016, the items seized during the April 1, 2016 search and
seizure operations as well as Search Warrant No. 2016-01 was returned by the
police officers to the issuing Court only on April 4, 2016 at around 1 PM. As
evidence thereof, herein attached is the Order of the Court dated April 4, 2016
acknowledging said return and further ordering the police officers to submit the
items seized to the PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp Simeon Ola, Legazpi City
“for drug testing and the bullets for ballistics test.”

From the foregoing sequence of events as narrated together with the

evidences attached, there was failure on the part of the police officers to
immediately turn over these seized items to the Honorable Court. In fact, from
8:40 AM of April 1, 2016 to 1 PM of April 4, 2016, the police had custody of
the items allegedly seized for more than three days.

In addition, the following seized evidence were never turned over to the
Honorable Court which issued Search Warrant No. 2016-01:

c. Two pieces of small heat sealed transparent plastic sachets with

marking RGL-1 04/01/16 and RGL-2 04/01/16 containing white
crystalline substance suspected to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as shabu;
d. Three pieces small heat sealed transparent plastic sachets with
markings RGL-1A 04/01/16, RGL-1B 04/01/16 and RGL-1C
04/01/16 containing suspected marijuana dried leaves.

This is evidenced by the Receipt issued by the Honorable Court in

Search Warrant No. 2016-01, which is herein attached as Annex “11.”

For guidance, the following table shows the items seized as well as the
items turned over to the Honorable Court:

Seized Items Items Received by Court

1. 2 pcs transparent small heated
sachets containing white
crystalline substance (suspected
drugs) (with markings) RGL-1
04/01/16 and RGL-2 04/01/16
2. 3 pcs transparent plastic small
 heated sachet containing suspected
marijuana (with markings) (RGL-
1A 04/01/16, RGL – 1B 04/01/16
and RGL-1C 04/01/16
3. 1 pc hand grenade with marking
RGL-1D 04/01/16
4. 1 pc rolled aluminium foil with
marking RGL-1E, 04/01/16
5. One pc Magazine with marking
RGL-1F 04/01/16 ((Empty for
Handgun Pistol)
6. 2 pcs lighter with markings RGL-
1G, 04/01/16, RGL-1H, 04/01/16
7. 7 pcs used aluminium foil
8. Five (5) pcs empty small open
sachet with markings RGL-1I
04/01/16, RGL-1J 04/01/16, RGL-
1K 04/01/16, RGL-1L 04/01/16
and RGL-1M 04/01/16
9. One (1) set wireless CCTV
Camera Blackstone Brand with
Chord marking RGL-1N 04/01/16
1 pc hand grenade with marking
RGL-1D 04/01/16
1 pc rolled aluminium foil with
marking RGL-1E, 04/01/16
One pc Magazine with marking
RGL-1F 04/01/16 ((Empty for
Handgun Pistol)
2 pcs lighter with markings RGL-
1G, 04/01/16, RGL-1H, 04/01/16
7 pcs used aluminium foil
Five (5) pcs empty small open
sachet with markings RGL-1I
04/01/16, RGL-1J 04/01/16, RGL-
1K 04/01/16, RGL-1L 04/01/16
and RGL-1M 04/01/16
One (1) set wireless CCTV Camera
Blackstone Brand with Chord
marking RGL-1N 04/01/16

With this, it is thus clear that from the time that the two (2) sachets
containing white crystalline substance and the three (3) sachets suspected
marijuana have been in the possession of the police authorities for some time
now, and perhaps even up to the present.
In addition, neither was the true inventory thereof verified under oath as
evidenced by the Inventory dated April 4, 2016 which is herein attached as
Annex “12”. This is in direct violation of Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court which provides to wit:

Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return

and proceedings thereon. — (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the
property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true
inventory thereof duly verified under oath.

(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing
judge shall ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall
summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to
explain why no return was made. If the return has been made, the judge
shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been complained with
and shall require that the property seized be delivered to him. The judge
shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
 (c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the
custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the
date of the return, the result, and other actions of the judge.

A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.(11a)

At this juncture, it is once again ripe to iterate that the immediate

delivery to the court of the items seized is mandatory in character. To borrow
the words of the Supreme Court, the requirement is to preclude substitution of
the items seized by interested parties or the tampering thereof.

That the police officers took custody of the seized items and forwarded
them to another office for examination violates the mandatory requirements of
the law and defeats the very purpose for which they were enacted.

Further, that the sachets containing suspected illegal drugs were never
turned over to the Honorable Court taints their integrity. In addition thereto,
neither were the police authorized to take custody of these sachets containing
suspected illegal drugs considering that the authority issued by the Honorable
Court as stated in its Order8 dated April 4, 2016 merely pertained to those
pieces of evidence listed in the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized dated
April 4, 2016. And clearly, these sachets containing suspected illegal drugs are
not among those listed in the Receipt9 dated April 4, 2016.

From the foregoing, speculations as to the probability of tampering with

the evidence cannot thus be avoided.

In this regard, the only time that the police authorities may take custody
of the seized items is when the Court which issued the warrant also issues an
order authorizing them to take custody thereof. Absent such approval, the
police officers have no authority to retain possession of the seized items,
moreso to deliver them to another office for examination. As it stands, the
police authorities were in possession of the seized items for three days without
court authority, except for the above-mentioned sachets containing suspected
illegal drugs. That they took custody of and retained the items seized on April
1, 2016 before obtaining authority from the Court which issued the warrant,
such authority having been issued only on April 4, 2016 clearly renders all the
items seized inadmissible.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that the items seized pursuant to Search Warrant No.
2016-01 be suppressed for being inadmissible, the same having been the fruit
of the poisonous tree.

8 Please kindly see Annex “10” of this Motion.

9 Please kindly see Annex “11” of this Motion.
 Other relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.

Irosin, Sorsogon. April 11, 2016.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Counsel for the Accused
Irosin District Office
2nd Floor, IC Building,
San Juan, Irosin, Sorsogon

By:

JAY ANDES
Roll No. 62881, 05/06/14;
IBP No. 1029277, 01/12/16/Albay;
MCLE Compliance No.: In the process of complying

Approved by:

Atty. Valentin A. Pura III

OIC-DPA/PA I

Copt furnished:

The Hon. Public Prosecutor

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Bulwagan ng Katarungan,
Sorsogon City