People vs Roberto Salanguit

FACTS:
This case involves an appeal of the decision of the RTC finding Salanguit guilty of violation of RA 6425
or the dangerous drugs act of 1972.
He was charge of two criminal case involving possession and /or use of prohibited drugs.
Sr. Inspector Aguilar applied for a warrant in the RTC to search Salanguit residence. He presented SPO1
Badua who testified that as poseur buyer he was able to purchase certain grams of Shabu from Salanguit
which took place at Salanguit’s room. He also testified that the said Shabu was taken by Salanguit from a
cabinet inside his room.
The application was granted, and a search was later issued which a group 10 policeman along with one
civilian informer went to the residence of Salanguit to serve the warrant.
During the search they found 12 small heat-sealed transparent plastic bags and a paper clip box
containing a white crystalline substance and two bricks of dried leaves which appeared to be marijuana
wrapped in newsprint.
After search Salanguit was taken by the police operatives along with the items they had seized to a station
in Edsa kamuning QC and thereafter a laboratory examination of the confiscated evidence was requested.
The examination revealed that white crystalline substance were positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu and that the two bricks of dried leaves are marijuana.
Salanguit was charged with two criminal cases for violation of RA 6425.
When arraigned he pleaded not guilty, and he was tried.
Three witnesses were presented by the prosecution.
While, on the hand Salanguit testified in his behalf and his testimony was corroborated by his mother-in-
law Soledad.
After hearing the trial court rendered its decision finding Salanguit guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged.
Hence the case.

ISSUE:

In this case Salanguit contests his conviction on three grounds, but in relation to our topic is the issue of
whether a search warrant that failed to particularly describe the items to be seized was invalid as a whole.
RULING
According to the court the first part of the search warrant, authorizing the search of Salanguit’s house for
an undetermined quantity of shabu, is valid, even though the second part, with respect to the search for
drug paraphernalia, is not.
The court in a previous case held that although a warrant is defective in the respects noted, it does not
follow that it is already invalid as a whole.
Such a conclusion would mean that the seizure of certain articles, even though proper if viewed
separately, must be condemned merely because the warrant is defective with respect to other articles.
The invalid portions of the warrant are severable from the authorization relating to the named items,
which formed the principal basis of the charge.
And that the search and seizure of an item, if otherwise valid, were not rendered illegal by the defects
concerning the other item. ...In so holding we do not mean to suggest that invalid portions "of a warrant
will be treated as severable under all circumstances.

Salanguit’s contention that the search warrant failed to indicate the place to be search with
sufficient particularity.
According to the court the ruled 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.
In this case, the location of Salanguit's house being indicated by the evidence on record, there can be no
doubt that the warrant described the place to be searched with sufficient particularity.
Therefor the search warrant with respect to the seizure of shabu from Salanguit’s residence was properly
issued.
And that such warrant being founded on probable cause personally determined by the judge under oath or
affirmation of the deposing witness and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to
be seized.

Salanguit’s Contention that search warrant authorized the seizure of methamphetamine

hydrochloride or shabu but not marijuana.
Seizure of the latter drug is being justified on the ground that the drug was seized within the "plain view"
of the searching party.
Under the "plain view doctrine," unlawful objects within 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 in evidence.

For this doctrine to apply, there must be:

(a) prior justification;
(b) inadvertent discovery of the evidence; and
(c) immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before the police.
The question now is whether these requisites were complied with by the authorities in seizing the
marijuana in this case.

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. Q-95-64357, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
96, Quezon City, finding accused-appellant Roberto Salanguit y Ko guilty of possession of illegal
drugs under §16 of R.A. No.6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, and
sentencing him to suffer a prison term ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum,
and four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and ordering the
confiscation of 11.14 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride is AFFIRMED .

In Criminal Case No. Q-95-64358, the decision of the same court finding accused-appellant Roberto
Salanguit y Ko guilty of possession of prohibited drugs under §8 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of Pl00,000.00 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and accused- appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
However, the confiscation of the 1,254 grams of marijuana, as well as the 11.14 grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, and its disposition as ordered by the trial court is AFFIRMED .

SO ORDERED.