Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People Vs Salanguit
People Vs Salanguit
*
G.R. Nos. 13325455. April 19, 2001.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
684
that a search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause
in connection with one specific offense 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
things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. In
issuing a search warrant, judges must comply strictly with the
requirements of the Constitution and the Rules of Criminal
Procedure. No presumption of regularity can be invoked in aid of
the process when an officer undertakes to justify its issuance.
Nothing can justify the issuance of the search warrant unless all
the legal requisites are fulfilled.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8fbab3730d5f6298003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/23
3/2/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME356
685
686
jects 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 is whether these requisites were complied
with by the authorities in seizing the marijuana in this case.
Same Same Same 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
the doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory
search from one object to another until something incriminating at
last emerges.Because the location of the shabu was indicated in
the warrant and thus known to the police operatives, it is
reasonable to assume that the police found the packets of the
shabu first. 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. As has
been explained: What the plain view cases have in common is
that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for
an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a
piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves
to supplement the prior justificationwhether it be a warrant for
another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or
some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with
a search directed against the accusedand permits the
warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original
justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to
the police that they have evidence before them the plain view
doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search
from one object to another until something incriminating at last
emerges.
Same Search Incident to Lawful Arrest A search incident to
a lawful arrest is limited to the person of the one arrested and the
premises within his immediate control.The only other possible
justification for an intrusion by the police is the conduct of a
search pursuant to accusedappellants lawful arrest for
possession of shabu. However, a search incident to a lawful arrest
is limited to the person of the one arrested and the premises
within his immediate control. The rationale for permitting such a
search is to prevent the person arrested from obtaining a weapon
to commit violence, or to reach for incriminatory evidence and
destroy it.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8fbab3730d5f6298003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/23
3/2/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME356
687
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8fbab3730d5f6298003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/23
3/2/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME356
688
MENDOZA, J.:
1
This is an appeal from the decision, dated January 27,
1998, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City,
finding accusedappellant 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 S8 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.
Charges against accusedappellant for violations of R.A.
No. 6425 were filed on December 28, 1995. In Criminal
Case No. Q9564357, the information alleged:
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8fbab3730d5f6298003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/23
3/2/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME356
_______________
689
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8fbab3730d5f6298003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/23
3/2/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME356
_______________
690
10
proximately 1,255 grams. A receipt of the items seized 11
was prepared, but the accusedappellant refused to sign it.
After the search, the police operatives took accused
appellant with them to Station 10, EDSA, Kamuning, 12
Quezon City, along with the items they had seized.
PO3 Duazo requested13
a laboratory examination of the
confiscated evidence. 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 and14 the other 850 grams, were found to be
marijuana.
For the defense, accusedappellant testified in his own
behalf. His testimony was corroborated by his motherin
law, Soledad Arcano.
Accusedappellant 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 15
the gate and
descended through an opening in the roof.
When accusedappellant demanded to be shown a search
warrant, a piece of paper inside a folder was waved in front
of him. As accusedappellant fumbled for his glasses,
however, 16 the paper was withdrawn and he had no chance
to read it.
Accusedappellant 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,17 a licensed .45 caliber firearm, jewelry,
and canned goods.
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8fbab3730d5f6298003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/23
3/2/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME356
10 Id., p. 7.
11 RTC Records (Crim. Case No. Q9564358), p. 10.
12 TSN, June 9, 1997, p. 8.
13 Id., p. 9.
14 Decision, p. 3 Rollo, p. 24.
15 TSN, pp. 14, Nov. 24, 1997.
16 Id., pp. 56.
17 Id., p. 9.
691
_______________
18 Id.
19 TSN, Oct. 6, 1997.
20 Rollo, pp. 4041.
692
_______________
693
SEARCH WARRANT
694
_______________
23 Rollo, p. 29.
695
Q How were you able to know the place where he kept the
stuff?
A When I first bought the 2.12 grams of shabu from him,
it was done inside his room and I saw that the shabu
was taken by him inside his cabinet.
Q Do you know who is in control of the premises?
A Yes, sir, it was ROBERT SALANGUIT @ Robert.
Q How sure are you, that the shabu that you bought from
ROBERT SALANGUIT @ Robert is genuine shabu?
A After I left the house of ROBERT SALANGUIT @
Robert, I proceeded back to our office and reported the
progress of my mission to our Chief and presented to
him the 2.12 grams of shabu I bought from the subject.
Then afterwards, our Chief formally requested the Chief
PNP Central Crime Laboratory Services, NPDC, for
Technical Analysis which yielded positive result for
shabu, a regulated drug as shown in the attached
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8fbab3730d5f6298003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/23
3/2/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME356
_______________
696
_______________
697
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8fbab3730d5f6298003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/23
3/2/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME356
While it is true that the caption of the search warrant states that
it is in connection with Violation of R.A. 6425, otherwise known
as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, it is clearly recited in the
text thereof that There is probable cause to believe that Adolfo
Olaes alias Debie and alias Baby of No. 628 Comia St.,
Filtration, Sta. Rita, Olongapo City, has in their possession and
control and custody of marijuana dried
stalks/leaves/seeds/cigarettes and other regulated/prohibited and
exempt narcotics preparations which is the subject of the offense
stated above. Although the specific section of the Dangerous
Drugs Act is not pinpointed, there is no question at all of the
specific offense alleged to have been committed as a basis for the
finding of probable cause. The search warrant also satisfies the
requirement in the Bill of Rights of the particularity of the
description to be made of the 28
place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
29
Indeed, in People v. Dichoso the search warrant was also
for Violation of R.A. 6425, without specifying what
provisions of the law were violated, and it authorized the
search and seizure of dried marijuana leaves and
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and sets of
paraphernalias (sic). This Court, however, upheld the
validity of the warrant:
_______________
authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug subject to the
provisions of Section 20 hereof.
SEC. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs.The penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death and fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated drug
without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to the provisions of
Section 20 hereof. (As amended by Sec. 16, RA No. 7659.)
28 Olaes v. People, 155 SCRA 486, 490491 (1987).
29 223 SCRA 174 (1993).
698
rant is clearly for more than one (1) specific offense. In short,
following this theory, there should have been three (3) separate
search warrants, one for illegal possession of shabu, the second for
illegal possession of marijuana and the third for illegal possession
of paraphernalia. This argument is pedantic. The Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals specifically with
dangerous drugs which are subsumed into prohibited and
regulated drugs and defines and penalizes categories of offenses
which are closely related or which belong to the same class or
species. Accordingly, one (1) search warrant may thus be 30
validly
issued for the said violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
31
Similarly, in another case, the search warrant was
captioned: For Violation of P.D. No. 1866 (Illegal
Possession of Firearms, etc.). The validity of the warrant
was questioned on the ground that it was issued without
reference to any particular provision in P.D. No. 1866,
which punished several offenses. We held, however, that
while illegal possession of firearms is penalized under 1 of
P.D. No. 1866 and illegal possession of explosives is
penalized under 3 thereof, the decree is a codification of
the various laws on illegal possession of firearms,
ammunitions, and explosives which offenses are so related
as to be subsumed within the category of illegal possession
of firearms, etc. under P.D. No. 1866. Thus, only one
warrant was necessary to cover the violations under the
various provisions of the said law.
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8fbab3730d5f6298003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/23
3/2/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME356
699
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8fbab3730d5f6298003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/23
3/2/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME356
700
What the plain view cases have in common is that the police
officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in
the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of
evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to
supplement the prior justificationwhether it be a warrant for
another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or
some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with
a search directed against the accusedand permits the
warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original
justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to
the police that they have evidence before them the plain view
doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search
from one37object to another until something incriminating at last
emerges.
appellants law
_______________
35 People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993) citing Harris v. United States,
390 U.S. 234, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1968).
36 People v. Musa, supra citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S.
433, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971).
37 Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra.
701
Moreover, when the NARCOM agents saw the plastic bag hanging
in one corner of the kitchen, they had no clue as to its contents.
They had to ask the appellant what the bag contained. When the
appellant refused to respond, they opened it and found the
marijuana. Unlike Ker v. California, where the marijuana was
visible to the police officers eyes, the NARCOM agents in this
case could not have discovered the inculpatory nature of the
contents of the bag had they not forcibly opened it. Even
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8fbab3730d5f6298003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/23
3/2/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME356
_______________
38 People v. Musa, supra, citing Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 69 L. Ed. 2d
744 (1981).
39 Supra.
702
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8fbab3730d5f6298003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/23
3/2/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME356
_______________
40 Id., p. 612.
41 Nolasco v. Pao, supra.
42 Formerly Rule 126, 6 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
703
704
o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8fbab3730d5f6298003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/23