*

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.

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972; 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.—Appellant’s contention that the search warrant in
question was issued for more than one (1) offense, hence, in
violation of Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, is
unpersuasive. He engages in semantic juggling by suggesting that
since illegal possession of shabu, illegal possession of marijuana
and illegal possession of paraphernalia are covered by different
articles and sections of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the
search warrant 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 offense which are closely related or which belong to
the same class or species. Accordingly, one (1) search warrant
may thus be validly issued for the said violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Act.

Remedial Law; Evidence; Regular performance of duty; The

defense of frame-up requires strong and convincing evidence
because of the presumption that the law enforcement agents acted
in the regular performance of their official duties.—Frame-up:
This Court rejects the appellant’s claim that he was framed. This
defense requires strong and convincing evidence because of the
presumption that the law enforcement agents acted in the regular
performance of their official duties. Appellant failed to rebut this
presumption. He did not even attempt to prove that the NARCOM
agents who obtained the search warrant, conducted the search
and recovered the prohibited drugs had motives other than to
enforce the law and stem the menace of drug addiction

________________

* THIRD DIVISION.

175

VOL. 223, JUNE 4, 1993 175

People vs. Dichoso

and trafficking which has already reached an alarming level and

has spawned a network of incorrigible, cunning and dangerous
operations. It may be stressed here that the defense of frame-up
can be easily fabricated and the accused in drugs cases almost
always take refuge in such a defense.

Same; Same; Search and Seizure; Ownership of the house

searched; It is not necessary that the property to be searched or
seized should be owned by the person against whom the search
warrant is issued, it is sufficient that the property is under his
control or possession.—Ownership of the House Searched: The
view of the appellant that the search was illegal and the articles
seized thereby cannot be used against him in evidence since he
does not own the nipa house searched or the lot wherein it was
built, is unmeritorious. It is not necessary that the property to be
searched or seized should be owned by the person against whom
the search warrant is issued; it is sufficient that the property is
under his control or possession. It was established, even by the
defense’s own evidence, that the appellant and his spouse have
been using the said nipa house. He admitted that the nipa house
is actually part of and adjacent to the big or main house in the
Dichoso residential compound, and that he and his family have
been using the nipa house as a resting place even before the
search.

APPEAL from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of

San Pablo City, Br. 30. Jaramillo, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Reynaldo M. Alcantara for accused-appellant.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Accused Redentor Dichoso y Dagdag appeals from the 11

June 1991 Decision of Branch 30 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of San Pablo City in Criminal Case1
No. 6711-
SP(91) and Criminal Case No. 6712-SP(91) finding him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15,
Article III and Section 4, Article II, respectively, of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as amended,
and sentencing him in each of the said cases to

________________

1 Per Judge J. Ausberto B. Jaramillo, Jr.

176

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dichoso

suffer the penalty of “reclusion perpetua with all its

accessory penalties, to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and the
costs of the suit.”
The informations in the above criminal cases were filed
against Redentor Dichoso and his wife Sonia Dichoso y
Vinerable on 8 March 1991.
The accusatory portion of the information in Criminal
Case No. 6711-SP(91) reads as follows:

“That on or about February 23, 1991, in the City of San Pablo,

Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused above-named, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, give way
(sic) to another and distribute 1.3 grams of methamphetamine
hydrocloride (sic) (shabu) and 6 decks of aluminum foil of shabu, a
regulated drug without being
2
authorized by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”

while that in Criminal Case No. 6712-SP(91) states:

“That on or about February 23, 1991, in the City of San Pablo,

Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused above-named, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, give way
(sic) to another and distribute dried marijuana fruiting tops,
leaves and seeds, a dangerous drug, without being authorized by
law.”
3
 3
CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Accused Jaime Pagtakhan was charged with illegally

possessing a regulated drug (shabu) and, thus, violating
Section 16, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as
amended, in an information which was docketed as
Criminal Case No. 6710-SP(91) in the court a quo.
Accused Sonia Dichoso y Vinerable could not be arrested
because, 4 in the words of the trial court, she “cannot be
located.” The records do not show that the trial court took
further steps to

________________

2 Original Record (OR), Crim. Case No. 6711-SP(91), 1.

3 Id., Crim. Case No. 6712-SP(91), 1.
4 OR, Crim. Case No. 6711-SP(91), (back of page 22).

177

VOL. 223, JUNE 4, 1993 177

People vs. Dichoso

have her arrested.

The three (3) cases were consolidated for joint trial in
Branch 30 of the RTC of San Pablo City and trial proceeded
as against accused Jaime Pagtakhan and Redentor Dichoso
after the two had entered a plea of not guilty upon
arraignment. NARCOM agents S/Sgt. Iluminado
Evangelista, Sgt. Fabian Gapiangao, C1C Rolando Bisenio
and P/Maj. Rosalinda Royales, the forensic chemist,
testified for the prosecution. Accused Redentor Dichoso and
Jaime Pagtakhan, as well as barangay captain Francisco
Calabia, testified for 5the defense. The latter identified a
Sinumpaang Salaysay in which he denounced the veracity
of Exhibits “B,” “C” and “D” and his signatures therein.
The evidence for the prosecution is summarized by the
trial court as follows:

“On February 22, 1991, the Narcotics Command of the 4th

Regional Unit stationed at Interior M. Paulino St., San Pablo City
applied for a search warrant to be issued on the house of spouses
Redentor Dichoso and Sonia Dichoso located at Farconville Subd.,
Phase II, San Pablo City. After searching questions on the
applicant and his deponent the Court was satisfied that there
existed probable cause to believe that indeed said spouses were
keeping, selling and using an undetermined quantity of
methamphetamine hydrocloride (sic) (shabu) and marijuana in
said residence. Consequently, Search Warrant No. 028 was issued
by the Court (Exhibit “A”).
On February 23, 1991, (Saturday) at about 2:00 P.M. at the
local NARCOM Unit stationed at Interior M. Paulino St., San
Pablo City, T/ Sgt. Iluminado Evangelista, the local District
Commander organized a team to serve Search Warrant No. 028
upon the spouses Redentor Dichoso and Sonia Dichoso residing at
Farconville Subd., Phase II, San Pablo City. Evangelista, the
team leader, was with S/Sgt. Fabian Gapiangao, Sgt. Antonio
Tila, C1C Rolando Besinio, Police Officer Michael Exconde and a
driver. Upon approaching said residence the team met an old man
and Evangelista introduced himself and his companions as
Narcom agents duly armed with a search warrant. Evangelista
asked for Redentor and Sonia and the old man opened the gate
into the Dichoso compound for the Narcom Agents. The old man
led them to the Nipa house where inside Redentor, Jaime
Pagtakhan and two other persons were sitting near a small table
with suspected shabu and paraphernalia on top thereof. Taken
aback the foursome did

________________

5 Exhibit “1”—Pagtakhan and Dichoso, Folder of Exhibits, 11-

12.

178

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dichoso

not move. Evangelista told them that they were Narcom agents,
and that they should not make any move and they had with them
a search warrant to serve. He then asked Sgt. Tila, a team
member, to fetch for the barangay chaiman (sic). In the meantime
Evangelista served a copy of the search warrant to Redentor.
After about 15 to 20 minutes Chairman Francisco Calabia arrived
and was met by Evangelista who forthwith showed him a copy of
the said warrant. Calabia read the search warrant and explained
the contents thereof to Redentor.
Thereafter, the search ensued inside the nipa house.
Evangelista discovered 200 grams more or less of suspected
marijuana wrapped in plastic inside a cabinet which was standing
on the right side upon entering the door of the nipa house.
Likewise discovered by him inside the cabinet are six (6) decks of
suspected shabu wrapped in an aluminum foil and the ‘Golden
Gate’ notebook (Exhibit F) containing the list of suspected
customers of dangerous and regulated drugs together with the
corresponding quantity and prices. From Pagtakhan’s right hand,
Evangelista recovered a small quantity of suspected shabu.
 Then, the search was shifted to the main house of the Dichosos.
However, the search produced negative results.
Evangelista instructed Besinio to collect the confiscated items
recovered at the nipa house of the Dichosos. Besinio separately
wrapped the items whereupon he and Gapiangao made markings
on the same. Besinio also put the names of Redentor and Sonia
inside some of the pages of Exhibit “F”. The team then got from
the main house a plastic bag where all the confiscated items were
put. Besinio sat in a corner of the nipa house and prepared in his
own handwriting the PAGPAPATUNAY (Exhibit “B”) attesting to
the result of the search conducted by the NARCOM team listing
thereon the different confiscated items, another
PAGPAPATUNAY (Exhibit “C”) attesting to the lawful manner
the search was conducted, and the Receipt (Exhibit “D”), all dated
February 23, 1991. Said exhibits were alternately given to
Calabia who read the contents thereof before voluntarily affixing
his signatures thereon. Then, he explained to Redentor and
Pagtakhan the contents of said exhibits. Afterwhich, Redentor
likewise voluntarily affixed his signatures thereon. (Exhibits B-1,
C-1 and D-3). Pagtakhan also affixed his signatures on Exhibit
“B” and “D” opposite the items confiscated in his possession by
Evangelista. A certain Angelito Ancot affixed his signature on
Exhibits B and C also as witness. Redentor was then given a copy
each of Exhibits B, C and D (Exhibits B-4, C-4 and D-4).
Subsequently, Calabia and the Narcom team left the Dichoso
residence. Said team brought with them for further investigation
at their headquarters Redentor, Pagtakhan and the two other
persons found inside the nipa house. Said two other persons who
were later known to be a certain ‘Jun’ and a certain Bayani
Salamat were set free by the

179

VOL. 223, JUNE 4, 1993 179

People vs. Dichoso

Narcom after having convinced the investigators that they were

innocent visitors or house guests of Redentor. Evangelista
prepared a letter addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp
Vicente Lim, Calamba, Laguna, requesting examination of the
confiscated drugs. At about 9:50 P.M. of that same day accused
Redentor and Pagtakhan executed their separate waivers under
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code with the assistance of
counsel (Exhibits “J” and “K”).
On February 25, 1991 (Monday) the Narcom made a return of
the search warrant and inventory to the Court (Exhibit E).
On February 26, 1991 (Tuesday) Besinio handcarried the
confiscated items to the PNP Crime Laboratory (Exhibits “L” and
“L-2”) for examination. That same day P/Major Rosalinda L.
Royales, Forensic Chemist concluded, after qualitative
examination, that the one (1) transparent plastic bag containing
1.3 grams of suspected methamphetamine hydrocloride (sic)
(shabu) placed in a plastic bag with markings and the six (6) foils
containing 0.3 grams of suspected methamphetamine
hydrocloride (sic) (shabu) wrapped in a foil and placed in a plastic
bag with markings gave positive results for methmaphetamine
hydrocloride (sic) (shabu). Additionally, the one (1) aluminum foil
containing 0.02 grams of methamphetamine hydrocloride (sic)
(shabu) placed in a plastic bag with markings as confiscated from
Pagtakhan gave positive results for methamphetamine
hydrocloride [sic] (shabu) and the one (1) light green plastic bag
containing 103.7 grams of suspected dried marijuana fruiting
tops, crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in a newspaper6
gave
positive results for marijuana (Exhibits M, series).”
7
On 17 June 1991, the trial court promulgated its decision
dated 11 June 1991, finding Jaime Pagtakhan and
Redentor Dichoso guilty as charged. The dispositive portion
of the decision reads:

“On the basis of the evidence on record, the Court finds that
Redentor Dichoso violated Section 15, Article III and Section 4,
Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Also, it is the finding of the
Court that Jaime Pagtakhan violated Section 16 of said Act. Both
of them should be made to suffer the consequences of their
unlawful acts.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby renders
judgment in Criminal Case No. 6710-SP finding JAIME
PAGTAKHAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense
charged in the Informa-

_______________

6 OR, Crim. Case No. 6711-SP(91), 45-48.

7 Id., 44-50.

180

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dichoso

tion, hereby sentences him to suffer the straight penalty of Six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor and to pay the costs. In
case he files an appeal, the bailbond for his provisional liberty is
hereby fixed at double the amount of his present bailbond.
In Criminal Cases Nos. 6711-SP and 6712-SP, the Court
hereby renders judgment finding accused REDENTOR DICHOSO
Y DAGDAG guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses
charged in the Informations, hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua with all its accessory
8
penalties, to
pay a fine of P20,000.00 and the costs of suit.”

Acting upon the ex-parte motion of the Assistant City9

Prosecutor, the trial court, in its Order of 25 June 1991,
clarified the sentence imposed on accused Dichoso by
declaring that the sentence of reclusion perpetua refers to
each of the two (2) cases against him, and amended the
decision by inserting the words “in each case” after the
words “to suffer” and before the words “the penalty” in the
decretal portion thereof. 10
Accused Redentor Dichoso filed a Notice of Appeal.
The records do not disclose that accused Jaime
Pagtakhan appealed from the decision. The transmittal
letter of the clerk of court of the RTC, dated 7 August 1991,
does not make any reference to Criminal Case No. 6710-
SP(91)11 and its original record was not forwarded to this
Court.
Nevertheless, the docket section of this Court entered in
the docket the three (3) criminal cases in the court below
and numbered them as G.R. Nos. 101216-18, erroneously
including in the cover of the rollo the name of Jaime
Pagtakhan as an accused-appellant. 12
In the Appellant’s Brief filed on 5 February 1992,
accused Redentor Dichoso, henceforth referred to as the
Appellant, urges this Court to reverse the decision because
the trial court erred in:
“I. x x x NOT QUASHING SEARCH WARRANT NO.
028 AND DISMISSING THE CASE AGAINST THE
ACCUSED.

________________

8 OR, Crim. Case No. 6711-SP(91), 50.

9 Id., 54.
10 Id., 52.
11 Rollo, first unpaginated page
12 Rollo, 58, et seq.

181

VOL. 223, JUNE 4, 1993 181

People vs. Dichoso

II. x x x CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ON THE

BASIS OF ILLEGALLY SEIZED AND/OR
 PLANTED EVIDENCE.
III. x x x ADMITTING PROSECUTION’S
EXHIBITS B, C AND D WITHOUT THE
ACCUSED BEING ASSISTED BY COUNSEL.
IV. x x x CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ON THE
BASIS OF EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO
PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
V. x x x COMPLETELY DISREGARDING
ACCUSED’S EVIDENCE THAT THE LAND AND
NIPA HUT FROM WHERE THE PROHIBITED,
REGULATED (sic) AND SETS OF
PARAPHERNALIAS (sic) WERE ALLEGEDLY
CONFISCATED
13
BELONG TO ANOTHER
PERSON.”

In support of the first and second assigned errors which are

jointly discussed, appellant contends that Search Warrant
No. 028, obtained and executed by the NARCOM agents, is
a general warrant because it was issued for Violation of RA
6425 known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as
amended” and did not specify the particular offense which
he violated under the said law, contrary to the
requirements prescribed by the Constitution and the Rules
of Court, and that it was issued in violation of Section 3,
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which provides that “no
search warrant shall issue for more than one specific
offense.” It was, he asserts, issued for three (3) possible
offenses, viz.: (a) illegal possession of marijuana dried
leaves, (b) illegal possession of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, and (c) illegal possession of opium pipe and
other paraphernalia for prohibited drug. He then 14argues,
following this Court’s ruling in Stonehill vs. Diokno which
condemned general warrants and barred the admission of
any evidence obtained by virtue thereof, that the articles
seized from the nipa house could not be used as evidence
against him and be made the basis of his conviction.
Appellant further claims that he was framed by the
police officers. He states that a certain Jun planted the
deck of shabu found on the table where he and his
companions were gathered

________________

13 Brief for Appellant, 1c.

14 20 SCRA 383 [1967].

182
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Dichoso

around. Jun allegedly placed the shabu there after asking

permission to use it, then he went out to meet Sgt.
Evangelista and the members of the NARCOM team
outside the house. Jun purportedly did not return to the
hut anymore, leaving his friend Bayani Salamat behind.
Appellant and Jaime Pagtakhan were also allegedly
handcuffed immediately, while Salamat was not and was,
in fact, released without being interrogated. To bolster his
claim, appellant cites the testimony of Barangay Captain
Calabia that the search which yielded the shabu,
marijuana and drug paraphernalia was conducted even
before his arrival; that when he arrived, the seized articles
were already on the table, and that the appellant was
already handcuffed. Calabia also assailed the veracity of
Exhibits “B,” “C” and “D.”
In his third assignment of error, appellant contends that
(1) Exhibit “B” (a “Pagpapatunay” attesting to the result of
the search conducted by the NARCOM team and listing the
items confiscated), (2) Exhibit “C” (a “Pagpapatunay”
attesting to the lawful manner of the search), and (3)
Exhibit “D” (the Receipt for Property Seized) are
inadmissible in evidence since he signed them while under
police custody without having been accorded his
Constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. These
exhibits, he argues, constitute uncounselled extrajudicial
confessions.
In his fourth assignment of error, appellant alleges that
he cannot be convicted for violation of R.A. No. 6425, as
amended, for unlawfully selling, delivering and giving
away to another, and distributing 1.3 grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and dried
marijuana leaves, fruit tops and seeds since he was not
caught “in flagrante.” He posits the view that in the light of
the definition of “delivering” and “selling” in Section 2 of
the Act, only the overt acts of unlawfully selling, delivering,
dispensing, transporting and distributing prohibited and
regulated drugs are punishable under Sections 4 and 15 of
the said Act, respectively. He points out that according to
Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, mere intention is not a
crime. He further argues that Exhibit “F” cannot be a basis
for his conviction because (1) the alleged transactions
mentioned therein are undetermined and could refer to a
loan, chattel mortgage or sale, but not to the dispensing
and delivering of shabu and marijuana as the lower court
presumed; (2) the names of Redentor Dichoso or “Redy
 183

VOL. 223, JUNE 4, 1993 183

People vs. Dichoso

Dichoso” and Sonia Dichoso appearing in the said notebook

were entered or written by C1C Orlando Besinio himself,
and without such entry, there is nothing therein which
would associate it with the appellant; and (3) it is
inadmissible in evidence because it is not among the items
particularized in the search warrant. He concludes this
assigned error with a claim that the trial court erred in
holding that a considerable quantity of shabu and
marijuana was found in his residence because 1.3 grams of
shabu and six (6) decks of aluminum foil of shabu can by no
means be characterized as “considerable,” especially taking
into account his admission that he sometimes uses shabu.
In his last assigned error, appellant asserts that the
nipa house and the lot where it is located do not belong to
him but to his brother, Abner Dichoso, hence, the search
conducted therein was unconstitutional and illegal and the
items obtained thereby are inadmissible in evidence
against him.
Appellee, thru the Office of the Solicitor General, refutes
the arguments raised by the appellant and prays that We
affirm the assailed decision.
We shall now pass upon the assigned errors and the
arguments adduced in support thereof.
On the validity of the search warrant: In its entirety, the
search warrant in question reads as follows:

“Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
4th Judicial Region, Branch 30
San Pablo City

People of the Philippines,

Plaintiff,

     -versus SEARCH WARRANT NO. 028

REDENTOR DICHOSO      -for-
and SONIA DICHOSO  
of Farconville Sub., VIOLATION OF RA 6425
Phase II, San Pablo known as the ‘Dangerous
City, Drugs Act of 1972’ as amended
     Respondents.  
x_____________x  
 184

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dichoso

SEARCH WARRANT

TO ANY OFFICER OF THE LAW:

G r e e t i n g s:

It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after

examining under oath, TSg. Iluminado S. Evangelista and his
witness Marlon Alcayde that there is probable cause to believe
that the above-named defendants are illegally in possession of
undetermined quantity/amount of dried marijuana leaves and
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) and sets of
paraphernalias (sic) stored inside the nipa hut within the
compound of their residence at Farconville Sub., Phase II, San
Pablo City which should be seized and brought to the
undersigned.
You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at
reasonable hour of the day or night of the premises above-
described and forthwith seize and take possession of the above-
stated marijuana leaves, shabu and sets of paraphernalias (sic)
and bring the same to the undersigned to be dealt with as the law
directs.
Witness my hand this 22nd day of February, 1991, at San
Pablo City.
(SGD.) J. AUSBERTO B. JARAMILLO, JR.
(TYP) J. AUSBERTO B. JARAMILLO, JR.15
Judge”

It is clear that the search warrant cannot be assailed as a

general search warrant because while it is for “Violation of
RA 6425 known as the ‘Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as
amended,’ ” the body thereof, which is controlling,
particularizes the place to be searched and the things to be
seized, and specifies the offense involved, viz., illegal
possession of marijuana and shabu and paraphernalia in
connection therewith. These are evident from the clause,
“are illegally in possession of undetermined quantity/
amount of dried marijuana leaves and methampetamine
Hydrochloride (Shabu) and sets of paraphernalias stored
inside the nipa hut within the compound of their residence
at Farconville Sub., Phase II, San Pablo City.”
Appellant’s contention that the search warrant in
question
_______________

15 Exhibit “A,” Crim. Cases Nos. 6711-SP(91) and 6712-SP(91), Folder

of Exhibits, 1.

185

VOL. 223, JUNE 4, 1993 185

People vs. Dichoso

was issued for more than one (1) offense, hence, in violation
of Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, is
unpersuasive. He engages in semantic juggling by
suggesting that since illegal possession of shabu, illegal
possession of marijuana and illegal possession of
paraphernalia are covered by different articles and sections
of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the search warrant 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
validly issued for the said violations of the Dangerous
Drugs Act. 16
In Olaes vs. People, which was cited by the Solicitor
General, We sustained a search warrant similarly
captioned and rejected the argument of the petitioner
therein that it was a general warrant, thus:

“The petitioners claim that the search warrant issued by the

respondent judge is unconstitutional because it does not indicate
the specific offense they are supposed to have committed. There
is, therefore, according to them, no valid finding of probable cause
as a justification for the issuance of the said warrant in
conformity with the Bill of Rights. In support of this argument,
they cited Stonehill v. Diokno, where Chief Justice Concepcion
struck down the search warrants issued therein for being based
on the general allegation that the petitioners had committed
violations of ‘Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws,
Internal Revenue Code and Revised Penal Code.’ x x x
xxx
 We have examined the search warrant issued in the instant
case and find it does not come under the strictures of the Stonehill
doctrine. In the case cited, there was a bare reference to the laws
in general, without any specification of the particular sections
thereof that were alleged to have been violated out of the hundred
of prohibitions contained in such codifications. There is no similar
ambiguity in the

________________

16 155 SCRA 486, 490-491 [1988].

186

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dichoso

instant case.
While it is true that the caption of the search warrant states
that it is in connection with ‘Violation of RA 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 for 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 ‘place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized.’ ”
17
The rationale We laid down in Prudente vs. Dayrit holds
true in the instant case. There, We upheld the validity of a
search warrant assailed as having been allegedly issued for
more than one (1) offense since it did not contain any
reference to any particular provision of P.D. No. 1866 that
was violated, when allegedly P.D. No. 1866 punishes
several offenses. We said:

“In the present case, however, the application for search warrant
was captioned: ‘For Violation of PD No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of
Firearms, etc.).’ While the said decree punishes several offenses,
the alleged violation in this case was, qualified by the phrase
‘illegal possession of firearms, etc.’ As explained by respondent
Judge, the term ‘etc.’ referred to ammunitions and explosives. In
other words, the search warrant was issued for the specific offense
of illegal possession of firearms and explosives. Hence, the failure
of the search warrant to mention the particular provision of PD
No. 1866 that was violated is not of such a gravity as to call for its
invalidation on this score.
Besides, while illegal possession of firearms is penalized under
Section 1 of PD No. 1866 and illegal possession of explosives is
penalized under Section 3 thereof, it cannot be overlooked that
said decree is a codification of the various laws on illegal
possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives; such illegal
possession of items destructive of life and property are related
offenses or belong to the same species, as to be subsumed within
the category of illegal possession of firearms, etc. under P.D. No.
1866. x x x”

________________

17 180 SCRA 69, 80-81 [1989].

187

VOL. 223, JUNE 4, 1993 187

People vs. Dichoso

We, therefore, agree with the Solicitor General that the

search warrant in question contains no fatal infirmity that
may justify its invalidation.
Since Search Warrant No. 028 is valid, the articles
seized by virtue of its execution may be admitted in
evidence. Consequently, the trial court committed no error
in denying the appellant’s motion to quash the said
warrant and refusing to dismiss the informations filed
against him.
Frame-Up: This Court rejects the appellant’s claim that
he was framed. This defense requires strong and
convincing evidence because of the presumption that the
law enforcement agents 18
acted in the regular performance of
their official duties. Appellant failed to rebut this
presumption. He did not even attempt to prove that the
NARCOM agents who obtained the search warrant,
conducted the search and recovered the prohibited drugs
had motives other than to enforce the law and stem the
menace of drug addiction and trafficking which has already
reached an alarming level and has spawned a 19network of
incorrigible, cunning and dangerous operations. It may be
stressed here that the defense of frame-up can be easily
fabricated and the accused in 20
drugs cases almost always
take refuge in such a defense.
 Furthermore, as correctly noted by the Solicitor General,
appellant’s claim of a frame-up only concerns the deck of
shabu allegedly taken out of the pocket of one Jun who
asked for and was readily permitted by the appellant to use
shabu on that occasion. It does not concern, much less
explain, the origin of the other prohibited drugs and
paraphernalia seized during the search.
Admissibility of Exhibits “B,” “C” and “D”: There is merit
to the appellant’s claim that Exhibits “B,” “C” and “D”
partake of the nature of uncounselled extrajudicial
confessions made while under the custody of the NARCOM
agents and, therefore, viola-

_______________

18 Section 3(m), Rule 131, Revised Rules of Court; People vs. Macuto,
176 SCRA 762 [1989]; People vs. Umali, 193 SCRA 493 [1991]; People vs.
Como, 202 SCRA 200 [1991].
19 People vs. de la Cruz, 184 SCRA 416 [1990].
20 People vs. Agapito, 154 SCRA 694 [1987].

188

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dichoso

21
tive of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
These exhibits are not “simply inventories or receipts of
articles seized from
22
appellant” as the appellee wants this
Court to believe. A clearer examination thereof shows that
C1C Rolando Bisenio, who prepared them, deliberately
wrote, in bold letters below the name REDENTOR D.
DICHOSO (over which the appellant was made to sign) the
words “MAY-ARI” in Exhibit “B” and “MAY-ARI BAHAY’ in
Exhibit “C,” while the word “OWNER” is printed below the
sub-heading “COPY OF THE RECEIPT RECEIVED” in
Exhibit “D.” By such descriptive words, appellant was in
fact made to admit that he is the owner of the articles
seized (Exhibit “B”), the house searched (Exhibit “C”) and
the articles inventoried in the receipt (Exhibit “D”). Thus,
while it may be true that the appellant was not asked
specific questions regarding the vital issue of ownership,
Bisenio obtained an admission from the former through the
said exhibits. This was a clever way of circumventing the
aforesaid Constitutional rights to counsel and to remain
silent. Admittedly, at the time Bisenio prepared the
exhibits, the appellant was already in the effective custody
of the NARCOM agents and deprived in a significant way
of his freedom of action. The preparation of the exhibits
substituted, for all legal intents and purposes, the custodial
interrogation.
There was no need of requiring the appellant to sign
documents similar to Exhibits “B” and “C.” As to Exhibit
“D,” which is the receipt for property seized, it is a
document required by Section 10, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court to be given by the seizing officer to the lawful
occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and 23
seizure were made. It is true that in People vs. Olivares,
We made the following statements:

“Exhibit “A” and “L” which identically show the specimen

signatures, are also admissible. These documents are part and
parcel of a mandatory and normal procedure followed by the
apprehending and seizing police officers. In these three Exhibits,
the accused-appellant

________________

21 Appellant mentions Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution, which had

already been superseded by Sections 12 and 17, Article III of the 1987
Constitution.
22 Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, 20.
23 186 SCRA 536 [1990].

189

VOL. 223, JUNE 4, 1993 189

People vs. Dichoso

did not give any statement against his own interest. The mere
signing of the documents did not amount to Olivares’ subjection to
a custodial investigation wherein an accused is required to give
statements about his involvement in the offense and wherein the
right to be informed of his rights to silence and to counsel would
otherwise be invoked. (People v. Rualo, 152 SCRA 635 [1987]).
Guilt is proved by other evidence.”

Yet, as explicitly indicated therein, Olivares “did not give

any statement against his own interest,” unlike in the case
of the appellant whose name Bisenio described as the
owner. Nevertheless, the above discussions do not alter the
result of this appeal. As correctly stated by the appellee,
these exhibits were not appreciated by the trial court as
extrajudicial confessions but merely as proof that the
articles therein enumerated were obtained during the
search which, by the way, was sufficiently established by
the testimonies of the NARCOM agents independently of
the said exhibits.
Seizure of Exhibit “F”: It is contended by the appellant
that Exhibit “F,” the brown notebook containing the entries
of names and figures, should not have been admitted in
evidence because it was not one of those specifically
mentioned in the warrant, hence, its seizure was
unjustified. This so-called warrant rule—that only those
listed in the search warrant may be seized—which the
appellant claims to 24have been enunciated in 1920 in Uy
Khetin vs. Villareal, and which he now summons to his
rescue, is not without exceptions. Among such exceptions is
the plain
25
view doctrine enunciated in Harris
26
vs. United
States and Coolidge vs. New 27
Hampshire which has been
adopted in our jurisdiction.
In Harris, the Federal Supreme Court of the United
States of America ruled:

“It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an
officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are
subject

________________

24 42 Phil. 886 [1920].

25 390 U.S. 324; 19 L Ed 2d 1067.
26 403 U.S. 443.
27 Roan vs. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 [1986]; People vs. Evaristo, G.R. No.
93828, 11 December 1992, citing REGALADO, Remedial Law Compendium, vol. 2,
1989 ed., 427.

190

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dichoso

to seizure and may be introduced in evidence. Ker v. California,

374 US 23, 42-43, 10 L ed 2d 726, 743, 83 S Ct 1623 (1963);
United States v. Lee, 274 US 559, 71 L ed 2d 1202, 47 S Ct 746
(1927); Hestor v. United States, 265 US 57, 68 L ed 2d 898, 44 S
Ct 445 (1924).”

We are not, however, inclined to rule that the foregoing

exception applies to this case, for the reason that the
search warrant was not for unlawful sale of shabu or
marijuana but for unlawful possession thereof as shall be
hereinafter discussed and that the notebook per se is not an
article possession of which is illegal or criminal. Exhibit “F”
proves neither sale nor possession.
 Ownership of the House Searched: The view of the
appellant that the search was illegal and the articles seized
thereby cannot be used against him in evidence since he
does not own the nipa house searched or the lot wherein it
was built, is unmeritorious. It is not necessary that the
property to be searched or seized should be owned by the
person against whom the search warrant is issued; it is
sufficient 28that the property is under his control or
possession. It was established, even by the defense’s own
evidence, that the appellant and his spouse have been
using the said nipa house. He admitted that the nipa house
is actually part of and adjacent to the big or main house in
the Dichoso residential compound, and that he and his
family have been using 29
the nipa house as a resting place
even before the search.
Any doubt as to the appellant’s control over the nipa
house where the seized articles were recovered is wiped out
by the testimony of the defense’s own witness, Francisco
Calabia, who affirmed that the appellant and his wife
Sonia Dichoso actually reside therein while 30
Redentor’s
parents and brother reside in the big house.
And now to the culpability of the appellant. He contends
that he could not be held guilty under Section 15, Article
III (for unlawful sale of shabu) and under Section 4, Article
II (unlawful sale of marijuana) of the Dangerous Drugs Act
in Criminal Case No. 6711-SP(91) and Criminal Case No.
6712-SP(91), respectively, because he was not caught in the
act of selling or deliver-

_______________

28 Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 [1984].

29 TSN, 11 June 1991, 34.
30 TSN, 4 June 1991, 17.

191

VOL. 223, JUNE 4, 1993 191

People vs. Dichoso

ing shabu and marijuana, and that the finding of guilt

against him was based solely on Exhibit “F” which,
according to the trial court, “contains conclusive proof of
Redentor’s unlawful business of selling shabu and
marijuana to customers, which included Pagtakhan and
Bayani Salamat.”
After a careful review and evaluation of the evidence on
record, this Court finds that the evidence of the prosecution
is insufficient to sustain a conviction for unlawful sale of
shabu in Criminal Case No. 6711-SP(91) and for unlawful
sale of marijuana in Criminal Case No. 6712-SP(91). There
is, however, overwhelming evidence which establishes with
moral certainty the guilt of the appellant for illegal
possession of shabu and marijuana under Section 16,
Article III and Section 8, Article II, respectively, of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended.
In convicting the appellant as charged, the trial court
relied mainly on Exhibit “F,” which it considered as
“conclusive proof of the appellant’s
31
drug pushing, and the
ruling in People vs. Toledo, It said:

“Redentor may claim that no evidence exists to show that he was

drug pushing i.e., selling, delivering, giving way (sic) to another
and distributing shabu and marijuana. The Court is not
convinced. Exhibits “F” among other things was found inside his
nipa house where, according to Calabia, the said spouses reside.
Redentor exercised control and custody of Exhibit F. He is
commonly referred to by his nickname ‘Redy’ which incidentally
appears in some pages of Exhibits F. Pagtakhan, on the other
hand, answers to the nickname ‘Jimmy’ which also appears in
some of the pages of Exhibit “F”. Pagtakhan did not rebut the
prosecution’s allegation that he is the same ‘Jimmy’ appearing in
Exhibit F. Bayani Salamat, one of the companion (sic) of Redentor
inside the nipa house at the time the Narcom agents arrived, also
appears to be a customer of Redentor (see pages 2 and 3 reverse
side of page 5, Exhibits “F”). Redentor, according to Pagtakhan, is
called for (sic) his nickname ‘Redy’. That name appears on Exhibit
F (see pages 2, 3, 4, and 5, thereof). The Court finds and so holds
that Exhibit F contains conclusive proof of Redentor’s unlawful
business of selling shabu and marijuana to customers which
includes Pagtakhan and Bayani Salamat. x x x. Furthermore,
there is a considerable quantity of shabu and marijuana taken by
the Narcom agents from the residence of

________________

31 140 SCRA 259 [1985].

192

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dichoso

Redentor which strongly indicates an intention on the part of

Redentor to sell, distribute and deliver said dangerous and
regulated drugs without32
being authorized by law (People vs.
Toledo, 140 SCRA 259).”
We find, however, that the conclusions drawn from Exhibit
“F” are merely conjectural. For one, the prosecution did not
attempt, and thus failed, to prove that the handwritten
entries therein were made by the appellant. It could have
easily done so by presenting, in accordance with the Rules,
either a handwriting expert or an ordinary33
witness familiar
with the handwriting of the appellant. There is, as well,
no competent proof that the said entries refer to
transactions regarding shabu or marijuana and that the
figures appearing therein pertain to prices of dangerous
drugs.
The facts in the instant case 34
do not warrant the
application of People vs. Toledo, which the trial court and
the appellee cited as authority. While in that case, this
Court stated that the possession of a considerable amount
of a prohibited drug (three (3) plastic bags of marijuana)
coupled with the fact that the accused was not a user of the
prohibited drug, indicate nothing except the intention to
sell and distribute it, the conviction of Toledo for violation
of Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended, was not based on that ground alone, but on the
accused’s extrajudicial confession, held to be valid and
admissible, wherein he disclosed the details of his
transactions of buying and selling marijuana by narrating
how and from whom he bought the three (3) plastic bags of
marijuana found in his possession, to whom he would sell
it, and for how long he had been engaged in pushing
prohibited drugs. In the instant case, appellant disclaims
ownership of Exhibit “F” and avers that the names
Redentor and Sonia Dichoso written on several pages
thereof were actually
35
written by prosecution witness C1C
Orlando Bisenio. Other than Exhibit “F,” there is no
evidence of sale, delivery, distribution or transportation of
prohibited drugs by the appellant.

_______________

32 OR, 49-50.
33 See Sections 49 and 50, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
34 Supra.
35 TSN, 21 May 1991, 38-39.

193

VOL. 223, JUNE 4, 1993 193

People vs. Dichoso

36
 36
The other case cited by the appellee, People vs. Claudio, is
of no help to the prosecution. In that case, the accused was
convicted of the violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425 for
her act of transporting marijuana and not of selling or
delivering the same, thus:

“Claudio contends that there was no delivery as there was no

recipient of the prohibited drugs. Therefore, she may not be
convicted under Sec. 4 of Rep. Act No. 6425.
The contention is without merit. A closer perusal of the subject
provision shows that it is not only delivery which is penalized but
also the sale, administration, distribution and transportation of
prohibited drugs. Claudio was caught transporting 1.1 kilos of
marijuana, thus the 37
lower court did not err in finding her guilty
of violating Sec. 4.”

In a prosecution for illegal sale of marijuana, what is

material is the proof that the selling transaction transpired
coupled with38the presentation in court of the corpus delicti
as evidence, and that to sustain a conviction for selling
prohibited drugs, the 39sale must be clearly and
unmistakably established.
In the case at bar, not a single witness of the
prosecution, not even Sgt. Evangelista, claims to have seen
the appellant sell or deliver shabu or marijuana to
anybody. Although Sgt. Evangelista testified that he was
told by his civilian informer or agent that the latter was
able to buy shabu from and was offered marijuana by the
appellant, the said civilian informer, who was presented by
the NARCOM when it applied for a search warrant, was
not presented in court during the trial of the cases below.
The unlawful sale of shabu or marijuana40 must be
established by unequivocal and positive evidence.
There is no doubt, however, that the appellant is guilty
of unlawful possession of shabu under Section 16, Article
III and

________________

36 160 SCRA 646 [1988].

37 Id., 654.
38 People vs. Mariano, 191 SCRA 136, 148 [1990], citing People vs.
Vocente, 187 SCRA 100 [1990] and People vs. Macuto, supra.
39 People vs. Alilin, 206 SCRA. 772 [1992].
40 People vs. Ramos, 186 SCRA 184, 192-193 [1990], emphasis supplied.

194

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 People vs. Dichoso

unlawful possession of marijuana under Section 8, Article

II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, in
Criminal Case No. 6711-SP(91) and Criminal Case No.
6712-SP(91), respectively. The crime of unlawful possession
of shabu, a regulated drug, under Section 16 is necessarily
included in the crime of unlawful sale thereof under
Section 15. Similarly, the crime of unlawful possession of
marijuana under Section 8 is necessarily included in the
crime41
of unlawful sale of marijuana under Section 4 of the
Act.
The appellant cannot evade liability for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs by his admission that he
sometimes uses shabu. Section 30 of R.A. No. 6425, which
provides that a drug dependent who voluntarily submits
himself for confinement, treatment and rehabilitation in a
center, shall not be criminally liable for any violation of
Section 8 and Section 16 of the law, does not apply to the
appellant because occasional “use” of a dangerous drug is
not the same as “drug dependence” which is defined as “a
state of psychic or physical dependence, or both, on a
dangerous drug, arising in a person following
administration or42 use of that drug on a periodic or
continuous basis.” Throughout the trial of the case below,
the appellant, whose petition for bail due to health reasons
was denied, has not been shown to be a drug dependent
and even if he was, indeed, a drug dependent, he did not
voluntarily submit himself for rehabilitation as required by
the law.
On the contrary appellant’s admission
43
during the trial
that he used shabu “once in a while” only helps ensure his
conviction for violation of Section 16 of the Dangerous
Drugs Act because the unauthorized use of a regulated
drug like shabu is one of the acts punishable under the said
section.
The penalty for illegal possession of regulated drugs like
shabu is “imprisonment ranging from six years and one day
to twelve years and a fine44
ranging from six thousand to
twelve thousand pesos.” The same penalty is provided for
illegal pos-

________________

41 People vs. Tantiado, G.R. Nos. 92795-96, 2 September 1992.

42 See Section 2, paragraphs (g) and (p), R.A. No. 6425.
43 TSN, June 1991, 54.
44 Section 16, R.A. No. 6425, as amended.
 195

VOL. 223, JUNE 4, 1993 195

People vs. Dichoso

45
session of marijuana, a46 prohibited drug. The
Indeterminate Sentence Law should, however, be applied.
It provides that in imposing a prison sentence for an
offense punished by a law other than the Revised Penal
Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the minimum term of which shall
not be less than the minimum fixed by law and the
maximum of which shall not exceed the maximum term
prescribed by the same.
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).
Costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.

     Feliciano (Chairman), Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ.,

concur.

Appealed decision affirmed with modification.

Note.—The presumption that official duty has been

regularly performed prevails, in the absence of any
evidence to the contrary (People vs. Pangos, 200 SCRA 67).

——o0o——

________________

45 Second paragraph, Section 8, R.A. 6425, as amended by B.P. Blg. 179

[1982]; People vs. Ramos, supra.
46 R.A. No. 4103 as amended.

196
 196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Manrique, Jr.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.