People V Dichoso, 223 Scra 174
People V Dichoso, 223 Scra 174
________________
* THIRD DIVISION.
175
________________
176
________________
177
________________
178
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
“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-
_______________
180
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.”
________________
181
________________
182
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Dichoso
SEARCH WARRANT
G r e e t i n g s:
185
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:
________________
186
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”
________________
187
_______________
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
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:
________________
189
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.”
“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
________________
190
_______________
191
________________
192
_______________
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
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:
________________
194
________________
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.
——o0o——
________________
196
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Manrique, Jr.