G.R. Nos.

101216-18 June 4, 1993

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
REDENTOR DICHOSO y DAGDAG, SONIA DICHOSO y VINERABLE and JAIME
PAGTAKHAN y BICOMONG, accused.
REDENTOR DICHOSO y DAGDAG, accused-appellant.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

FACTS:

This case pertains to the appellant Redentor Dichoso is appealing the decision of Regional
Trial Court which found him guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The charges
relate to the unlawful sale and distribution of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and
dried marijuana.

The case originated from the filing of charges against Redentor Dichoso and his wife, Dichoso
y Vinerable. The charges included the sale, delivery, and distribution of regulated drugs
without authorization. The trial proceeded jointly with accused Jaime Pagtakhan, who was
charged with illegal possession of shabu.

The prosecution's case was built on the execution of a search warrant on February 23, 1991, at
the residence of the Dichoso couple. The Narcotics Command obtained the warrant based on
probable cause, leading to the discovery of suspected shabu and marijuana at the premises.
Witnesses, including NARCOM agents and a forensic chemist, testified for the prosecution.

On June 11, 1991, the trial court rendered a decision, finding both Redentor Dichoso and Jaime
Pagtakhan guilty as charged.

In his appeal, Redentor Dichoso raised several arguments:

The search warrant was a general warrant, violating constitutional and procedural
requirements.

The evidence seized during the search was allegedly planted by the police officers.
Exhibits "B," "C," and "D" (related to the search) were inadmissible as they constituted
uncounseled extrajudicial confessions, thereby violating Section 12, Article III of the 1987
Constitution.

The evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The nipa house and lot where the search took place did not belong to him.
The appellant sought the reversal of the decision based on these arguments. The Office of the
Solicitor General opposed the appeal and urged the Supreme Court to affirm the trial court's
decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court erred in upholding the validity of the search warrant

RULING:

NO. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision on the validity of the search warrant.

The court dismissed the appellant's argument that the search warrant was a general warrant,
emphasizing its specificity in identifying the place and items to be seized.

Citing Olaes vs. People, the court held that a search warrant can be sustained even without
pinpointing the specific section of the law, as long as it adequately specifies the offense.

Property Ownership
The court said that the law doesn't require the property to be owned by the person against
whom the search warrant is issued; it is enough that the property is under his control or
possession

Lastly, the court found the appellant not guilty of unlawful sale due to insufficient evidence but
convicted him of unlawful possession of shabu and marijuana.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the search warrant, rejected the
appellant's frame-up defense, and found him guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

Decision:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court
of San Pablo City, dated 11 June 1991, in Criminal Cases Nos. 6711-SP (91) and 6712-SP (91)
is hereby modified. As modified, accused-appellant REDENTOR DICHOSO y DAGDAG is
hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 16, Article III of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as amended, in Criminal Case No. 6711-SP
(91) and Section 8 of Article II of the said Act in Criminal Case No. 6712-SP (91). Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced in each case to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years as minimum to twelve (12) years as maximum, and
to pay a fine of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00).