PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

ANNABELLE FRANCISCO y DAVID, @ ANNABELLE

TABLAN, Accused-Appellant.

Facts:
Federico Verona and his girlfriend, Annabelle Francisco, were
under surveillance after police confirmed they were selling
shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride. SPO2 Teneros
and SPO4 Alberto San Juan applied for a search warrant to
search their premises in Caloocan City. Annabelle Francisco,
nine months pregnant, heard a loud bang downstairs and
eight policemen entered her bedroom. They seized a Salad
Set marked Pyrex wrapped in plastic containing white
crystalline substance or methamphetamine hydrochloride,
weighing 230 grams and drug paraphernalia and cellular
phone. The search warrant was enforced by the police team,
Barangay Chairwoman Miguelita Limpo and Kagawad Bernie
de Jesus.

In the search warrant issued the place of seizure was served

at apartment No. 120 and not at the specific address stated
therein which is 122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City will not by
itself render as illegal the search and seizure of subject stuff
seized by the operatives pursuant thereto.

In the defense of the police officer and witnesses, the

sketches was purported to be the apartment 122 which is
the place of the seizure not was indicated in the search
warrant which is Apartment 120. The court also affirmed the
intention of the policer officer and what was committed was
just an error.

The accused filed a motion to quash on suppressing the

illegality of the search warrant that evidence were captured
as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.

Issue:
Whether or not the search warrant is valid.

Decision,

No, the petition lacks merit.

Under Section 2 of Art III, 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.

In the present case, the police officer omitted the exact

address of the place to be seize. Also, the court did not
appreciate the defense and if we will allow the undue
diligence of the particularity of place of seizure it will be
abusive to the law enforcer to deprive the right to privacy of
individual. Moreover, the items which were not subject of
the seizure were not returned to the accused.