Criminal Procedure Cases.docx

8/17/2019 Criminal Procedure Cases.docx

1/26

G.R. No. 140946. September 13, 2004]MICROSOFT CORPORATION !" #OT$S %&'OPM&NTCORPORATION, petitioners, vs. MA(ICORP, INC.,respondent .

)e C*ehis petition for review on certiorar i [1] seeks to reverse the Court of Appeals

Decision[2] dated 23 December 199 and its !esolution dated 29 "ovember

999 in CA#$%!% &' "o% (()))% The Court of Appeals reversed the *rder [3] of

he !e+ional Trial Court, -ranch 23, .anila /!TC0, denin+ respondent

.aicorp, nc%s /.aicorp0 motion to 4uash the search warrant that the !TC

ssued a+ainst .aicorp% 'etitioners are the private complainants a+ainst

.aicorp for copri+ht infrin+ement under &ection 29 of 'residential Decree

o% (9 /&ection 29 of 'D (90[(] and for unfair competition under Article 19 of

he !evised 'enal Code /!'C0%[5]

A!te+e"e!t F+t**n 25 6ul 1997, "ational -ureau of nvesti+ation /"-0 A+ent Dominador

amiano, 6r% /"- A+ent &amiano0 filed several applications for search

warrants in the !TC a+ainst .aicorp for alle+ed violation of &ection 29 of 'D

9 and Article 19 of the !'C% After conductin+ a preliminar eamination of

he applicant and his witnesses, 6ud+e 8illiam .% -ahon issued &earch

8arrants "os% 97#(51, 97#(52, 97#(53 and 97#(5(, all dated 25 6ul 1997,

+ainst .aicorp%Armed with the search warrants, "- a+ents conducted on 25 6ul 1997 a

earch of .aicorps premises and seied propert fittin+ the description stated

n the search warrants%*n 2 &eptember 1997, .aicorp filed a motion to 4uash the search warrants

lle+in+ that there was no probable cause for their issuance and that the

warrants are in the form of +eneral warrants% The !TC denied .aicorps

motion on 22 6anuar 199)% The !TC also denied .aicorps motion for

econsideration%he !TC found probable cause to issue the search warrants after eaminin+

- A+ent &amiano, 6ohn -enedict &acri /&acri0, and computer technician

eliberto 'ante /'ante0% The three testified on what the discovered durin+

heir respective visits to .aicorp% "- A+ent &amiano also presented

ertifications from petitioners that the have not authoried .aicorp to

erform the witnessed activities usin+ petitioners products%*n 2( 6ul 199), .aicorp filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of

Appeals seekin+ to set aside the !TCs order% *n 23 December 199, the

Court of Appeals reversed the !TCs order denin+ .aicorps motion to 4uash

he search warrants% 'etitioners moved for reconsideration% The Court of

Appeals denied petitioners motion on 29 "ovember 1999%he Court of Appeals held that "- A+ent &amiano failed to present durin+ the

reliminar eamination conclusive evidence that .aicorp produced or sold

he counterfeit products% The Court of Appeals pointed out that the sales

eceipt "- A+ent &amiano presented as evidence that he bou+ht the products

om .aicorp was in the name of a certain 6oel Dia% ;ence, this petition%

)e I**e*etitioners seek a reversal and raise the followin+ issues for resolution<

1% 8;=T;=! T;= '=TT*" !A&=& >?=&T*"& *: @A82% 8;=T;=! '=TT*"=!& ;AB= @=$A@ '=!&*"A@T T* :@= T;=

'=TT*"

3% 8;=T;=! T;=!= 8A& '!*-A-@= CA?&= T* &&?= T;= &=A!C;8A!!A"T&

(% 8;=T;=! T;= &=A!C; 8A!!A"T& A!= $="=!A@ 8A!!A"T&%

T)e R-!/ o t)e Cort The petition has merit

On Whether the Petition Raises Questions of Law .aicorp assails this petition as defective since it failed to raise 4uestions of

law% .aicorp insists that the ar+uments petitioners presented are

4uestions of fact, which this Court should not consider in a !ule (5

petition for review% 'etitioners counter that all the issues the presented

in this petition involve 4uestions of law% 'etitioners point out that the facts

are not in dispute%

A petition for review under !ule (5 of the !ules of Court should c

4uestions of law%[7] >uestions of fact are not reviewable% As a rule, the find

of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and this Court wil

review them on appeal,[)] subect to eceptions as when the findin+s of

appellate court conflict with the findin+s of the trial court%[]

The distinction between 4uestions of law and 4uestions of fact is set

A 4uestion of law eists when the doubt or difference centers on what the

is on a certain state of facts% A 4uestion of fact eists if the doubt center

the truth or falsit of the alle+ed facts% Thou+h this delineation seems sim

determinin+ the true nature and etent of the distinction is sometproblematic% :or eample, it is incorrect to presume that -- cases wherefacts are not in dispute automaticall involve purel 4uestions of law%

There is a 4uestion of law if the issue raised is capable of bein+ reso

without need of reviewin+ the probative value of the evidence% [9]The resolu

of the issue must rest solel on what the law provides on the +iven se

circumstances% *nce it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evide

presented, the 4uestion posed is one of fact% [1E] f the 4uer re4uires a

evaluation of the credibilit of witnesses, or the eistence or relevanc

surroundin+ circumstances and their relation to each other, the issue in

4uer is factual%[11] *ur rulin+ in Paterno v. Paterno[12] is illustrative on

point<

&uch 4uestions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded

probative value or wei+ht, or reected as feeble or spurious, or whether or n

the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincin+ and ade4uate

establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt 4uestions of fact% 8heth

or not the bod of proofs presented b a part, wei+hed and analed in

relation to contrar evidence submitted b adverse part, ma be said to be

stron+, clear and convincin+ whether or not certain documents presented

one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as t

their spurious character b the other side whether or not inconsistencies in

bod of proofs of a part are of such +ravit as to ustif refusin+ to +ive sa

proofs wei+ht all these are issues of fact%

t is true that .aicorp did not contest the facts alle+ed b petitioners% -ut

situation does not automaticall transform -- issues raised in the petition4uestions of law% The issues must meet the tests outlined in Paterno%

*f the three main issues raised in this petition the le+al personali

the petitioners, the nature of the warrants issued and the presence of probcause onl the first two 4ualif as 4uestions of law% The pivotal issu

whether there was probable cause to issue the search warrants is a 4ues

of fact% At first +lance, this issue appears to involve a 4uestion of law sin

does not concern itself with the truth or falsit of certain facts% &till,

resolution of this issue would re4uire this Court to in4uire into the prob

value of the evidence presented before the !TC% :or a 4uestion to be on

law, it must not involve an eamination of the probative value of the evide

presented b the liti+ants or an of them%[13]

et, this is precisel what the petitioners ask us to do b ra

ar+uments re4uirin+ an eamination of the T&"s and the documen

evidence presented durin+ the search warrant proceedin+s% n s

petitioners would have us substitute our own ud+ment to that of the !TC

the Court of Appeals b conductin+ our own evaluation of the evidence% Th

eactl the situation which &ection 1, !ule (5 of the !ules of Court proh

b re4uirin+ the petition to raise onl 4uestions of law% This Court is not a

of facts% t is not the function of this court to anale or wei+h evide[1(] 8hen we +ive due course to such situations, it is solel b wa

eception% &uch eceptions appl onl in the presence of etre

meritorious circumstances%[15]

ndeed, this case falls under one of the eceptions because the find

of the Court of Appeals conflict with the findin+s of the !TC%[17] &

petitioners properl raised the conflictin+ findin+s of the lower courts,

proper for this Court to resolve such contradiction%On Whether Petitioners have the Legal Personality to File this Petition

.aicorp ar+ues that petitioners have no le+al personalit to file

petition since the proper part to do so in a criminal case is the *ffice of

&olicitor $eneral as representative of the 'eople of the 'hilippines% .ai

states the +eneral rule but the eception +overns this case%[1)]8e r

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn1


2/26

n Columbia Pictures ntertainment! "nc. v. Court of #ppeals[1] that the

etitioner#complainant in a petition for review under !ule (5 could ar+ue its

ase before this Court in lieu of the &olicitor $eneral if there is +rave error

ommitted b the lower court or lack of due process% This avoids a situation

where a complainant who activel participated in the prosecution of a case

would suddenl find itself powerless to pursue a remed due to circumstances

eond its control% The circumstances in Columbia Pictures

ntertainment are sufficientl similar to the present case to warrant the

pplication of this doctrine%On Whether there was Probable Cause to "ssue the $earch Warrants

'etitioners ar+ue that the Court of Appeals erred in reversin+ the !TC

ased on the fact that the sales receipt was not in the name of "- A+entamiano% 'etitioners point out that the Court of Appeals disre+arded the

verwhelmin+ evidence that the !TC considered in determinin+ the eistence

f probable cause% .aicorp counters that the Court of Appeals did not err in

eversin+ the !TC% .aicorp maintains that the entire preliminar eamination

hat the !TC conducted was defective%The Court of Appeals based its reversal on two factual findin+s of the

!TC% :irst, the fact that the sales receipt presented b "- A+ent &amiano as

roof that he bou+ht counterfeit +oods from .aicorp was in the name of a

ertain 6oel Dia% &econd, the fact that petitioners other witness, 6ohn

enedict &acri, admitted that he did not bu counterfeit +oods from .aicorp%8e rule that the Court of Appeals erred in reversin+ the !TCs findin+s%'robable cause means such reasons, supported b facts and

ircumstances as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action and

he means taken in prosecutin+ it are le+all ust and proper %[19] Thus, probable

ause for a search warrant re4uires such facts and circumstances that would

ead a reasonabl prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed

nd the obects sou+ht in connection with that offense are in the place to be

earched%[2E]

The ud+e determinin+ probable cause must do so onl after personall

aminin+ under oath the complainant and his witnesses% The oath re4uired

must refer to the truth of the facts within the per*o!- !o-e"/e of theetitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the

ommittin+ ma+istrate, not the individual makin+ the affidavit and seekin+ the

ssuance of the warrant, of the eistence of probable cause% [21] The applicant

must have personal knowled+e of the circumstances% !eliable information is

nsufficient%[22] .ere affidavits are not enou+h, and the ud+e must depose in

writin+ the complainant and his witnesses%[23]

The Court of Appeals reversal of the findin+s of the !TC centers on the

act that the two witnesses for petitioners durin+ the preliminar eamination

ailed to prove conclusivel that the bou+ht counterfeit software from

.aicorp% The Court of Appeals ruled that this amounted to a failure to prove

he eistence of a connection between the offense char+ed and the place

earched%The offense char+ed a+ainst .aicorp is copri+ht infrin+ement under

ection 29 of 'D (9 and unfair competition under Article 19 of the !'C% To

upport these char+es, petitioners presented the testimonies of "- A+ent

amiano, computer technician 'ante, and &acri, a civilian% The offenses that

etitioners char+ed .aicorp contemplate several overt acts% The sale of

ounterfeit products is but one of these acts% -oth "- A+ent &amiano and

acri related to the !TC how the personall saw .aicorp commit acts of

nfrin+ement and unfair competition%Durin+ the preliminar eamination, the !TC subected the testimonies

f the witnesses to the re4uisite eamination% "- A+ent &amiano testified that

e saw .aicorp displa and offer for sale counterfeit software in its premises%e also saw how the counterfeit software were produced and packa+ed within

.aicorps premises% "- A+ent &amiano cate+oricall stated that he was

ertain the products were counterfeit because .aicorp sold them to its

ustomers without +ivin+ the accompanin+ ownership manuals, license

+reements and certificates of authenticit%&acri testified that durin+ his visits to .aicorp, he witnessed several

nstances when .aicorp installed petitioners software into computers it had

ssembled% &acri also testified that he saw the sale of petitioners software

within .aicorps premises% 'etitioners never authoried .aicorp to install or

ell their software%The testimonies of these two witnesses, coupled with the obect and

ocumentar evidence the presented, are sufficient to establish the eistence

f probable cause% :rom what the have witnessed, there is reason to believe

that .aicorp en+a+ed in copri+ht infrin+ement and unfair competition to

preudice of petitioners% -oth "- A+ent &amiano and &acri were clear

insistent that the counterfeit software were not onl displaed and sold w

.aicorps premises, the were also produced, packa+ed and in some ca

installed there%The determination of probable cause does not call for the applicatio

rules and standards of proof that a ud+ment of conviction re4uires after

on the merits% As implied b the words themselves, probable caus

concerned with probabilit, not absolute or even moral certaint%

prosecution need not present at this sta+e proof beond reasonable do

The standards of ud+ment are those of a reasonabl prudent man, [2(] no

eactin+ calibrations of a ud+e after a full#blown trial%"o law or rule states that probable cause re4uires a specific kin

evidence% "o formula or fied rule for its determination eists%[25]'rob

cause is determined in the li+ht of conditions obtainin+ in a +iven situa[27] Thus, it was improper for the Court of Appeals to reverse the !TCs find

simpl because the sales receipt evidencin+ "- A+ent &amianos purchas

counterfeit +oods is not in his name%:or purposes of determinin+ probable cause, the sales receipt is no

onl proof that the sale of petitioners software occurred% Durin+ the sea

warrant application proceedin+s, "- A+ent &amiano presented to the u

the computer unit that he purchased from .aicorp, in which computer

.aicorp had pre#installed petitioners software%[2)] &acri, who was pre

when "- A+ent &amiano purchased the computer unit, affirmed that

A+ent &amiano purchased the computer unit%[2] 'ante, the comp

technician, demonstrated to the ud+e the presence of petitioners software

the same computer unit%[29] There was a comparison between petitio

+enuine software and .aicorps software pre#installed in the computer

that "- A+ent &ambiano purchased%[3E] =ven if we disre+ard the sales rec

issued in the name of 6oel Dia, which petitioners eplained was the alias

A+ent &amiano used in the operation, there still remains more than suffic

evidence to establish probable cause for the issuance of the search warranThis also applies to the Court of Appeals rulin+ on &acris testim

The fact that &acri did not actuall purchase counterfeit software f

.aicorp does not eliminate the eistence of probable cause% Cop

infrin+ement and unfair competition are not limited to the act of se

counterfeit +oods% The cover a whole ran+e of acts, from cop

assemblin+, packa+in+ to marketin+, includin+ the mere offerin+ for sale of

counterfeit +oods% The clear and firm testimonies of petitioners witnesse

such other acts stand untarnished% The Constitution and the !ules of C

onl re4uire that the ud+e eamine personall and thorou+hl the applicanthe warrant and his witnesses to determine probable cause% The

complied ade4uatel with the re4uirement of the Constitution and the !ule

Court%'robable cause is dependent lar+el on the opinion and findin+s o

ud+e who conducted the eamination and who had the opportunit to 4ues

the applicant and his witnesses%[31] :or this reason, the findin+s of the u

deserve +reat wei+ht% The reviewin+ court should overturn such findin+s

upon proof that the ud+e disre+arded the facts before him or i+nored the c

dictates of reason%[32] "othin+ in the records of the preliminar eamina

proceedin+s reveal an impropriet on the part of the ud+e in this case

one can readil see, here the ud+e eamined thorou+hl the applicant and

witnesses% To demand a hi+her de+ree of proof is unnecessar and untim

The prosecution would be placed in a compromisin+ situation if it w

re4uired to present all its evidence at such preliminar sta+e% 'roof be

reasonable doubt is best left for trial%On Whether the $earch Warrants are in the %ature of &eneral Warrant

A search warrant must state particularl the place to be searched

the obects to be seied% The evident purpose for this re4uirement is to

the articles to be seied onl to those particularl described in the sea

warrant% This is a protection a+ainst potential abuse% t is necessar to le

the officers of the law with no discretion re+ardin+ what articles the s

seie, to the end that no unreasonable searches and seiures be committen addition, under &ection (, !ule 127 of the !ules of Crim

'rocedure, a search warrant shall issue in connection with one spe

offense% The articles described must bear a direct relation to the offense

which the warrant is issued% [3(] Thus, this rule re4uires that the warrant m

state that the articles subect of the search and seiure are used or inten

for use in the commission of a specific offense%

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/111267.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/111267.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/111267.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/111267.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/140946.htm#_ftn34


3/26

.aicorp ar+ues that the warrants issued a+ainst it are too broad in

cope and lack the specificit re4uired with respect to the obects to be seied%

After eaminin+ the wordin+ of the warrants issued, the Court of Appeals ruled

n favor of .aicorp and reversed the !TCs *rder thus<

nder the fore+oin+ lan+ua+e, almost an item in the petitioners store can be

eied on the +round that it is used or intended to be used in the ille+al or

nauthoried copin+ or reproduction of the private respondents software and

heir manuals%[35]

he Court of Appeals based its reversal on its perceived infirmit of para+raphe0 of the search warrants the !TC issued% The appellate court found that

imilarl worded warrants, all of which noticeabl emplo the phrase used or

ntended to be used, were previousl held void b this Court% [37] The disputed

et of the search warrants in this case states<

a0 Complete or partiall complete reproductions or copies of .icrosoft

software bearin+ the .icrosoft copri+hts andFor trademarks

owned b .C!*&*:T C*!'*!AT*" contained in CD#

!*.s, diskettes and hard disksb0 Complete or partiall complete reproductions or copies of .icrosoft

instruction manuals andFor literature bearin+ the .icrosoft

copri+hts andFor trademarks owned b .C!*&*:T

C*!'*!AT*"

c0 &undr items such as labels, boes, prints, packa+es, wrappers,receptacles, advertisements and other paraphernalia bearin+ the


C*!'*!AT*"d0 &ales invoices, deliver receipts, official receipts, led+ers, ournals,

purchase orders and all other books of accounts and documents

used in the recordin+ of the reproduction andFor assembl,

distribution and sales, and other transactions in connection with

fake or counterfeit products bearin+ the .icrosoft copri+hts

andFor trademarks owned b .C!*&*:T C*!'*!AT*"e Compter )r"re, !+-"!/ +e!tr- pro+e**!/ !t*

!+-"!/ )r" "**, C%ROM "r5e*, ebor"*, mo!tor*+ree!* !" "*ette*, p)oto+op!/ m+)!e* !" ot)ere7pme!t or prp)er!- *e" or !te!"e" to be *e" !t)e --e/- !" !t)or8e" +op!/ or repro"+to! o

M+ro*ot *otre !" t)er m!-*, or )+) +o!t!,"*p- or ot)er*e e)bt, t)ot t)e t)ort oMICROSOFT CORPORATION, ! !" -- M+ro*ottr"emr* !" +opr/)t*: !"

f0 Documents relatin+ to an passwords or protocols in order to access

all computer hard drives, data bases and other information

stora+e devices containin+ unauthoried .icrosoft software%[3)] /=mphasis supplied0

t is onl re4uired that a search warrant be specific as far as the

ircumstances will ordinaril allow%[3] The description of the propert to be

eied need not be technicall accurate or precise% The nature of the

escription should var accordin+ to whether the identit of the propert or its

haracter is a matter of concern%[39] .easured a+ainst this standard we find

hat para+raph /e0 is not a +eneral warrant% The articles to be seied were notnl sufficientl identified phsicall, the were also specificall identified b

tatin+ their relation to the offense char+ed% 'ara+raph /e0 specificall refers to

hose articles used or intended for use in the ille+al and unauthoried copin+

f petitioners software% This lan+ua+e meets the test of specificit%[(E]

The cases cited b the Court of Appeals are inapplicable% n those

ases, the Court found the warrants too broad because of particular

ircumstances, not because of the mere use of the phrase used or intended to

e used% n Columbia Pictures! "nc. v. Flores, the warrants orderin+ the

eiure of television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders and tape

leaners were found too broad since the defendant there was a licensed

istributor of video tapes%[(1] The mere presence of counterfeit video tapes in

he defendants store does not mean that the machines were used to produce

he counterfeit tapes% The situation in this case is different% .aicorp is not a

licensed distributor of petitioners% n 'ache ( Co. )Phil.*! "nc.! et al. v. +u

Rui,! et al., the Court voided the warrants because the authoried

seiure of records pertainin+ to all business transactions of the defend[(2] And in - th Century Fo/ Film Corp. v. Court of #ppeals, the C

4uashed the warrant because it merel +ave a list of articles to be sei

a++ravated b the fact that such appliances are +enerall connected with

le+itimate business of rentin+ out betama tapes%[(3]

;owever, we find para+raph /c0 of the search warrants lackin

particularit% 'ara+raph /c0 states<

c0 &undr items such as labels, boes, prints, packa+es, wrappers,

receptacles, advertisements and other paraphernalia bearin+


C*!'*!AT*"

The scope of this description is all#embracin+ since it covers propert use

personal or other purposes not related to copri+ht infrin+ement or u

competition% .oreover, the description covers propert that .aicorp

have bou+ht le+itimatel from .icrosoft or its licensed distributors% 'ara+

/c0 simpl calls for the seiure of all items bearin+ the .icrosoft lo+o, whe

le+itimatel possessed or not% "either does it limit the seiure to products u

in copri+ht infrin+ement or unfair competition%&till, no provision of law eists which re4uires that a warrant, par

defective in specifin+ some items sou+ht to be seied et particular

respect to the other items, should be nullified as a whole% A partiall defec

warrant remains valid as to the items specificall described in the warrant

search warrant is severable, the items not sufficientl described ma be cu

without destroin+ the whole warrant%[(5] The eclusionar rule found in &e

3/20 of Article of the Constitution renders inadmissible in an proceedin

evidence obtained throu+h unreasonable searches and seiure% Thus

items seied under para+raph /c0 of the search warrants, not fallin+ un

para+raphs a, b, d, e or f, should be returned to .aicorp%;631 ?!e 29, 1993CO#$M@IA PICT$R&S, INC., ORION PICT$R&S CORP., PARAMO$NTPICT$R&S CORP., T;&NTI&T< C&NT$R FO( FI#M CORP., $NIT&%ARTISTS CORP., $NI'&RSA# CIT ST$%IOS, INC., T


4/26

with and licensed as a reproducer b the said board under @icense "o% 97)

B.. /p% 11, Rollo0%n a letter dated April 2E, 19), the .'AA, throu+h counsel !ico B% Domin+o,

od+ed a complaint before then Director Antonio Carpio of the "ational -ureau

f nvesti+ation /"-0 a+ainst certain video establishments for violation of

residential Decree "o% (9 /'rotection of ntellectual 'ropert0, as amended

'residential Decree "o% 19, in connection with its anti#pirac campai+n%

pecificall complainin+ of the Gunauthoried sale, rental, reproduction andFor

isposition of copri+hted filmG, the .'AA sou+ht the "-Hs Gur+ent assistance

n the conduct of search and seiure operations in .etro .anila and

lsewhereG% /p% 29, Rollo%0

*n the basis of said letter, "- and private a+ents conducted discreeturveillance operations on certain video establishments, amon+ them private

espondent :$T Bideo "etwork, nc% /:$T0% Thus, on April 2E, 19), Danilo

.analan+, a%k%a% !onaldo @im, alle+edl an "- a+ent, went to the office of

$T to have the copri+hted motion pictures GCleopatraG owned b Twentieth

Centur :o :ilm Corp% and GThe Ten CommandmentsG owned b 'aramount

ictures, nc% reproduced or retaped in video format% :or the reproduction

ervices, :$T issued *rder &lip "o% 3(2 dated April 2E, 19) and Deliver

lip "o% 1177) dated April 22, 19), for which services Danilo .analan+ paid

(5%EE% *n .a 5, 19), .analan+ also had .$.Hs copri+hted film G8alk

ike a .anG reproduced or retaped b :$T for '15%EE /p% 5, Rollo0%Conse4uentl, on .a 1(, 19), "- A+ent @auro C% !ees, with .analan+

nd !ebecca -enite#Cru as witnesses, applied for a search warrant with the

!e+ional Trial Court in 'asi+% ntroduced as evidence in support of the

pplication were the followin+< the letter dated April 2E, 19) of the .'AA

hrou+h !ico B% Domin+o /=h% A0 :$THs *rder &lip "o% 3(2 /=h% -0 :$THs

Deliver &lip "o% 1177) /=h% -#10 video cassettes containin+ the film GThe

en CommandmentsG /=hs% -#1#A, -#1#-0 video cassette containin+ the film

CleopatraG /=h% -#1#C0 video cassette containin+ the film G8alk @ike a .anG

=h% -#1#D0 :$THs *rder &lip "o% 3923 dated .a 5, 19) /=h% -#20 :$THs

Deliver &lip "o% 123321 dated .a 7, 19) /=h% -#30 list of copri+hted

.'AA member compan titles /=h% C0 sketch of location of :$THs office or

remises /=h% D0 affidavit of !ebecca -enite#Cru /=h% =0 special power

f attorne desi+natin+ .s% -enite#Cru as petitionersH attorne#in# fact /=h%

to :#0 and affidavit of Danilo .analan+ /=h% $0%pon the offer of these pieces of evidence, 6ud+e Alfredo C% :lores of the

foresaid court, issued &earch 8arrant "o% (5 which reads<T* A" '=AC= *::C=!<$!==T"$&<

t appearin+ to the satisfaction of the ?ndersi+ned after eaminin+ under

oath "- &enior A+ent @auro C% !ees and his witnesses .r% Danilo

.analan+ and .s% !ebecca -enite#Cru, that there is a probable cause to

believe that Biolation of &ection 57 '%D% "o% (9 as amended b '%D% "o%

19 /otherwise known as the Decree on 'rotection of ntellectual 'ropert0

has been committed and that there are +ood and sufficient reasons to

believe that :$T Bideo "etwork, nc%, .anuel .endoa, Alfredo C%

*n+anco, =ric Apolonio, &usan an+ and =duardo otoko are responsible

and have in controlFpossession at "o% ( =pifanio de los &antos corner

Connecticut, $reenhills, &an 6uan, .etro .anila /per attached sketch and

list of .'AA member Compan Titles0 the followin+ properties to wit</a0 'irated video tapes of the copri+hted motion picturesFfilms the titles of which are mentioned in

the attached list/b0 'osters, advertisin+ leaflets, flers, brochures, invoices, lists of titles bein+ reproduced or

retaped, ournals, led+ers, on /sic 0 order slips, deliver slips and books of accounts bearin+ andFor

mentionin+ the pirated films with titles /as per attached list0, or otherwise used in the

reproductionFrepatin+ business of the defendants

/c0 "ele#ision sets, #ideo cassette recorders, rewinders, tape $ead cleaners, accessories,equip%ent and ot$er %ac$ines and parap$ernalia or %aterials used or intended to e used in t$e

unlawful sale, lease, distriution, or possession for purpose of sale, lease, distriution, circulation

or pulic e'$iition of t$e ao#e(%entioned pirated #ideo tapes w$ic$ t$ey are keeping and

concealing in t$e pre%ises ao#e(descried, w$ic$ s$ould e sei)ed and roug$t to t$e

*ndersigned %ou are hereb commanded to make an immediate search at an time in the da between


5/26

rivate respondents, on the other hand, claim that the issuance of &earch

8arrant "o% (5 is tainted with ille+alit as no particular or specific acts or

missions constitutin+ the offense char+ed had been alle+ed in the application

or its issuance%he ri+ht to securit a+ainst unreasonable searches and seiures is

uaranteed under &ection 2, Article of the 19) Constitution which provides<&ec% 2% The ri+ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers

and effects a+ainst unreasonable searches and seiures of whatever nature

and for an purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of

arrest shall issue ecept upon probable cause to be determined b the

ud+e after eamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the

witnesses he ma produce, and particularl describin+ the place to besearched and the persons or thin+s to be seied%

hus, &ections 3 and ( of !ule 127 of the !ules of Court provide for the

e4uisites in the issuance of search warrants<&ec% 3% Requisites for issuing searc$ warrant % I A search warrant shall not

issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be

determined personall b the ud+e after eamination under oath or

affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he ma produce, and

particularl describin+ the place to be searched and the thin+s to be seied%&ec% (% E'a%ination of co%plainant+ record % I The ud+e must, before

issuin+ the warrant, personall eamine in the form of searchin+ 4uestions

and answers, in writin+ and under oath the complainant and the witnesses

he ma produce on facts personall known to them and attach to the record

their sworn statements to+ether with an affidavits submitted%n issuin+ a search warrant, the ud+e must strictl compl with the

onstitutional and statutor re4uirements% ;e must determine the eistence ofrobable cause b personall eaminin+ the applicant and his witnesses in the

orm of searchin+ 4uestions /&ilva vs% 'residin+ 6ud+e, !TC of "e+ros

*riental, -r% JJJ /2E3 &C!A 1(E /1991]0% The search warrant must contain

specific description of the place to be searched and the articles sou+ht to be

eied must be described with particularit /'endon vs% Court of Appeals, 191

C!A (29 [199E]0%8ithal, measured b the afore+oin+ constitutional and le+al provisions as well

s the eistin+ urisprudence on the matter, we find that &earch 8arrant "o%

5 fails to satisf the test of le+alit% .ore so because the Court has previousl

ecided a case dealin+ with virtuall the same search warrant%n -t$ entury /o' /il% orp. #s. ourt of Appeals /17( &C!A 755 [19]0,

wherein therein petitioner is also one of the petitioners herein, we upheld the

e+alit of the order of the lower court liftin+ the search warrant issued under

ircumstances similar to those obtainin+ in the case at bar%

A strikin+ similarit between the case at bar and -t$ entury /o' is the fact

hat &earch 8arrant "o% (5, specificall para+raph /c0 thereof describin+ the

rticles to be seied, contains an almost identical description as the warrant

ssued in the -t$ entury /o' case, to wit</c0 Television sets, Bideo Cassettes !ecorders, rewinders, tape head

cleaners, accessories, e4uipments and other machines used or intended to

be used in the unlawful reproduction, sale, rentalFlease, distribution of the

above#mentioned video tapes which she is keepin+ and concealin+ in the

premises above#described% /at p% 77(%0*n the propriet of the seiure of the articles above#described, we held in said

ase<Television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders and tape cleaners are

articles which can be found in a video tape store en+a+ed in the le+itimate

business of lendin+ or rentin+ out betama tapes% n short, these articles

and appliances are +enerall connected with, or related to a le+itimate

business not necessaril involvin+ pirac of intellectual propert or

infrin+ement of copri+ht laws% ;ence, includin+ these articles without

specification andFor particularit that the were reall instruments in violatin+

an Anti#'irac law makes the search warrant too +eneral which could result

in the confiscation of all items found in an video store% /at p% 775%0he lan+ua+e used in para+raph /c0 of &earch 8arrant "o% (5 is thus too all#

mbracin+ as to include all the paraphernalia of :$T in the operation of its

usiness% As the search warrant is in the nature of a +eneral one, it is

onstitutionall obectionable /Corro vs% @isin+, 13) &C!A 5(1 [195]0%n conse4uence, respondent court was merel correctin+ its own erroneous

onclusions in issuin+ &earch 8arrant "o% (5 when it ordered the return of the

eied television sets and other paraphernalia specified in the motion filed b

$T% This can be +leaned from its statement that G% % % the machines and

4uipment could have been used or intended to be used in the ille+al

reproduction of tapes of the copri+hted motion picturesFfilms, et, it canno

said with moral certaint that the machines or e4uipment/s0 were used in

violatin+ the law b the mere fact that pirated video tapes of the copri+hte

motion picturesFfilms were reproduced% As alread stated, :$T Bideo "etw

nc% is a re+istered and dul licensed distributor and in certain instances an

under special instructions % % % reproducer of video+rams, and as such, it ha

the ri+ht to keep in its possession, maintain and operate reproduction

e4uipment /s0 and paraphernalia /s0%G /pp% 131#132, Rollo%0:ar from bein+ despotic or arbitrar, respondent ud+e must be commende

for rectifin+ his error when he found that his initial conclusions were

inaccurate and erroneous, collidin+ as the did with the constitutional ri+hts

private respondent%.uch has been said in the media about pirac of films and videotapes and

violators of the law must be brou+ht to the courts but, as the Court said

in agali$og #s. /ernande) /19 &C!A 71( [1991]0, G[]eal in the pursuit o

criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrar methods that the Constitution

itself abhors%G /at p% 722%08;=!=:*!=, the petition is D&.&&=D, the assailed order of .a 29, 1

A::!.=D, and the temporar restrainin+ order issued on 6une 1, 19),

vacated and lifted% &* *!D=!=D%

[G.R. No. 1D32D4. September 30, 2004]P&OP#& OF T


6/26

pper portion of the house and found three lar+e plastic packs of white

rstalline substance%[] The second +roup, composed of -aclaon and

orina+a, searched the +round floor and found ei+ht medium heat#sealed

lastic packs of white crstalline substance and fift#three heat#sealed plastic

ackets of white crstalline substance two disposable li+hters, one pair of

cissors, one tooter, one puller and an improvised hacksaw%[9] &ervando

oluntaril surrendered five small packs of white crstalline substance%E] Appellant was arrested and informed of her constitutional ri+hts, specificall,

he ri+ht to counsel to which she replied that she has a lawer who will

epresent her %[11] 'etallar then prepared an inventor of the seied articles and

ppellant was made to si+n the same%[12] '*3 -auon and '*3 'etallar

plained that the inventor receipt was dated 6ul 2(, 2EEE althou+h the raid

was conducted on 6ul 31 because their office had earlier prepared the blank

orm%[13] A cop of the inventor was +iven to a tanod [1(] and thereafter

ppellant and &ervando were brou+ht to the police station while the items

eied were brou+ht to the 'hilippine "ational 'olice /'"'0 Crime @aborator

or eamination%[15]

Fnsp% .utchit &alinas, chemist of the '"' !e+ional Crime @aborator *ffice,

who conducted the laborator test on these substances confirmed that the

pecimens submitted for testin+ were positive for the presence of

methamphetamine hdrochloride known as s$au%[17]

he defense presented the followin+ witnesses< =lena !% $arcia, 6aime $arcia

nd appellant herself who testified to establish the followin+ facts<he house subect of the search on 6ul 31, 2EEE was owned b =lena,

ppellants +randmother, and her late husband, 6ose $arcia, as evidenced b

cop of Ta Declaration "o% E1#3E751 in the name of 6ose $arcia[1)] that

nl -rent @epiten, =lenas +randson, was livin+ in the house while appellant

was livin+ with her parents in &an Bicente Billa+e, 8ireless, .andaue Cit, a

istance of about five kilometers from =lenas place%[1] *n 6ul 31, 2EEE,

lena, who was in the upper portion of the house with her son, 6aime, who

appened to sleep in her house the ni+ht before because he had a drinkin+

pree with some friends, went downstairs because of the thuddin+ sound from

heir door %[19] Appellant, who was in the house to visit her +randmother, was

avin+ breakfast when the door was opened% &everal men entered the house

nd instructed them to sit down% Two of these men carrin+ an envelope went

pstairs and woke up 6aime $arcia%[2E] 6aime then went downstairs and these

wo men without the envelope followed two minutes later %[21] Appellant and the

ther occupants were told to wait for the arrival of thetanods% Then, the same

wo men who earlier went upstairs went up a+ain with a tanod and when the

ame down, the had with them an envelope, the contents of which were

pread on the table and were listed down%[22] Appellant was then asked to si+npaper where a listin+ of the contents of the envelope was made but she

e4uested to contact her lawer which was denied%[23] &he was forced to si+n

therwise she would be handcuffed%[2(] The list of the inventor was neither

ead to her nor did the leave a cop for her or to an of the occupants%5] Appellant declared that the search warrant was served on her but she never

ead it nor was it read to her %[27]

*n 6une 2), 2EE1, the trial court rendered its assailed decision [2)] findin+

ppellant +uilt as char+ed% The decretal portion of the decision reads<8;=!=:*!=, findin+ accused =den del Castillo +uilt beond reasonable

oubt of the crime char+ed, the accused is hereb sentenced to suffer the

enalt of !eclusion 'erpetua% The seied or confiscated items are declared

orfeited in favor of the +overnment and the same shall be disposed of in the

manner allowed b law%

[2]

n convictin+ appellant, the trial court ratiocinated<

After a careful analsis of the testimonial and documentar evidence on

ecord, the Court is of the well considered view and so holds that the

rosecution was able to establish the fact that the accused had indeed, with

eliberate intent and without bein+ authoried b law, in her possession and

ontrol or use on or about 6ul 31, 2EEE at about 1E


7/26

The essential elements of the crime of possession of re+ulated dru+s

re the followin+< /a0 the accused is found in possession of a re+ulated dru+

b0 the person is not authoried b law or b dul constituted authorities and,

c0 the accused has knowled+e that the said dru+ is a re+ulated dru+%n 0eople #s. "ira,[31] we eplained the concept of possession of

e+ulated dru+s, to wit<

his crime is mala prohibita, and as such, criminal intent is not an essential

lement% ;owever, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent

o possess /animus posidendi0 the dru+s% 'ossession, under the law, includes

ot onl actual possession, but also constructive possession% Actual

ossession eists when the dru+ is in the immediate phsical possession or

ontrol of the accused% *n the other hand, constructive possession eists

when the dru+ is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he

as the ri+ht to eercise dominion and control over the place where it is found%

clusive possession or control is not necessar% The accused cannot avoid

onviction if his ri+ht to eercise control and dominion over the place where

he contraband is located, is shared with another%hus, conviction need not be predicated upon eclusive possession, and a

howin+ of non#eclusive possession would not eonerate the accused% &uch

act of possession ma be proved b direct or circumstantial evidence and an

easonable inference drawn therefrom% ;owever, the prosecution must prove

hat the accused had knowled+e of the eistence of the presence of the dru+

n the place under his control and dominion and the character of the dru+%

ince knowled+e b the accused of the eistence and character of the dru+s in

he place where he eercises dominion and control is an internal act, the samema be presumed from the fact that the dan+erous dru+s is in the house or

lace over which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises

n the absence of an satisfactor eplanation%

'rosecution witnesses failed to establish that the house where

he s$au and other s$au paraphernalias were found belon+s to

ppellant%*n the other hand, defense evidence clearl showed that the subect

ouse belon+s to appellants +randmother, =lena $arcia, who testified in direct

amination as follows<

ATT% !B=!A@<> ou stated in our personal circumstances that ou are a resident of

.abolo, Cebu Cit% Do ou own a houseL A es, owned a house%

> 8ith whom are ou livin+ therewithL A . +randson%> 8hat is the name of our +randson livin+ with ou at that houseL A -rent @epiten%> ou stated that ou owned a house in .abolo, Cebu Cit which was the subect of the

search% Do ou have an evidence to show that ou owned that houseL A es, have%> &howin+ to ou this machine cop which is Ta Declaration "o% E1#3E751 in the name

of 6ose $arcia% s this the ta declaration evidencin+ our ownership and

possession of our houseL A es, that is the one%> ;ow are ou related to 6ose $arciaL A . husband%> 8here is he nowL A ;e is alread dead% ATT% !B=!A@<8e re4uest our ;onor that the machine cop of the ta declaration be marked as our

=hibit 1%C*?!T<.ark it% ATT% !B=!A@<> The house which ou mentioned belon+s to ou, how man stores are thereL

A Two stores% ATT% !B=!A@<> ou mean the +round floor and the upper portionL A es, sir%> 8here do ou usuall take our rest in the evenin+L A n the upper portion%> Do ou know accused =den del CastilloL A es, she is one of m +randchildren%> 8here is she livin+L A &an Bicente Billa+e, 8ireless, .andaue Cit%> s accused =den del Castillo still sin+leL A &he is still sin+le%> 8ith whom is she livin+ with before the arrestL A To+ether with her auntie =dna Aballe%> ;ow about her parentsL A &ometime/s0 when the traveled at -adian onl =den is in the house to+ether with her

auntie but the staed in their house%> *n 6ul 31, 2EEE in that evenin+ who was sleepin+ at the upper portion of our

houseL A .self and m +randson%> ou are mentionin+ of 6aime, who is this 6aimeL

:&CA@ @A-*!T=<The witness was onl asked who slept at the upper portion and she answered mself

and m +randson% ATT% !B=!A@<> ou mentioned one 6aime $arcia, wh was he thereL A This 6aime was able to sleep in the house at that time considerin+ that his wife was

abroad%% % % ATT% !B=!A@<> That 6aime $arcia ou said where did he take his rest that ni+htL A At our house%> n what portion thereofL A At the upper portion% [32]

The evidence of the prosecution failed to establish b compe

evidence that appellant is the owner or at least shared the ownership of

house where the s$au was found% '*3 'etallar testified that based on

own casin+ operation, appellant fre4uented the subect house to eat me[33] that the were not sure that the house was owned b appellant but

believed that she had belon+in+s therein since she fre4uented the sa[3(] '*2 -orina+a testified it was a public knowled+e that appellant was livin

the subect house since she was a child%[35] Thus, there is no compe

evidence that appellant had control and dominion over the place w

the s$au was found% The claim of appellant that she has her residence in

Bicente Billa+e, 8ireless, .andaue Cit and that she was onl a visitor in

house that belon+s to her +randmother at the time of the search was

rebutted b convincin+ evidence%8hile it is not necessar that the propert to be searched or se

should be owned b the person a+ainst whom the search warrant is iss

however, there must be sufficient showin+ that the propert is under appelcontrol or possession%[37]

The prosecution likewise failed to prove appellants possession

the s$au at the time of her arrest% t bears stressin+ that at the time

raidin+ team conducted the search, appellant and the other occupants w

asked to sta in the livin+ room% '*3 'etallar did not find an dru+s

appellants bod nor was there anthin+ unusual or suspicious noted in

person%[3)]

"otabl, the policemen testified that the found the s$au in the u

portion of the house, however, it was not shown at all in whose room it

found% n fact, the defense evidence showed that at the time the two police

went upstairs, 6aime $arcia, appellants uncle, was asleep and was awake

b the policemen who asked him to +o down% This was corroborated b

-orina+a who testified on cross#eamination that while he was downst

there was a person upstairs who came down% [3] .oreover, it was appel

+randmother and the latters +randson, -rent, who were stain+ in the upportion of the house% Also, the s$au found at the +round floor of the ho

does not conclusivel establish that it belon+s to appellant since it was

found to+ether with the other thin+s of appellant% To reiterate, she was no

onl person who had access to the entire house% n fact, it was also show

the prosecution that a certain &ervando, appellants brother, volun

surrendered five small plastic packs of white crstalline substance% 8e

that the prosecution failed to prove convincin+l that

seieds$au belon+ed to appellant%.oreover, the manner in which the search was conducted on the sub

house failed to compl with the mandator provisions of &ection /form

&ection )0, !ule 127 of the !ules of Court, which provides<

&=C% % Searc$ of $ouse, roo%, or pre%ises, to e %ade in presence of tw

witnesses "o search of a house, room, or an other premise shall be madeecept in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or an member of his

famil or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient a+e and

discretion residin+ in the same localit%

Clearl, the search of the house must be done in the presence of

lawful occupants and it is onl in the absence of the former that two witne

of sufficient a+e and discretion residin+ in the same localit ma be ca

upon to witness the search% 8hile appellant and the other occupants of

house were present durin+ the search, the were not allowed to act

witness the search of the premises% The were in the words of the police

pressed, i%e%, the were asked to sta put in the sala where the were se

while the simultaneous search was on#+oin+ in the upper and lower portion

the house%[39] The should be the ones that should have accompanied

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/139615.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/139615.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/139615.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/153254.htm#_ftn39


8/26

olicemen while the search was bein+ done and not substituted b

he arangay tanods in their stead% 8e held in 0eople #s. 3ouintero vs% The "ational -ureau of

nvesti+ation, et al%, a procedure, wherein members of a raidin+ part can

oam around the raided premises unaccompanied b an witness, as the onl

witnesses available as prescribed b law are made to witness a search

onducted b the other members of the raidin+ part in another part of the

ouse, is violative of both the spirit and letter of the law%hat the raidin+ part summoned two baran+a ka+awads to witness the

earch at the second floor is of no moment% The !ules of Court clearl and

plicitl establishes a hierarch amon+ the witnesses in whose presence the

earch of the premises must be conducted% Thus, &ection , !ule 127

rovides that the search should be witnessed b two witnesses of sufficient

+e and discretion residin+ in the same localit onl in the absence of either of

he lawful occupant of the premises or an member of his famil% Thus, the

earch of appellants residence clearl should have been witnessed b his son

ack $o who was present at the time% The police officers were withoutiscretion to substitute their choice of witnesses for those prescribed b the

aw%

he search conducted b the police officers of appellants residence is

ssentiall no different from that in 0eople #. 1el Rosario where this Court

bserved<

8e thus entertain serious doubts that the shabu contained in a small canister

was actuall seied or confiscated at the residence of the accused#appellant%

n conse4uence, the manner the police officers conducted the subse4uent and

much delaed search is hi+hl irre+ular% ?pon bar+in+ into the residence of the

ccused#appellant, the police officers found him lin+ down and the

mmediatel arrested and detained him in the livin+ room while the searched

he other parts of the house% Althou+h the fetched two persons to witness theearch, the witnesses were called in onl after the policeman had alread

ntered accused#appellants residence /''% 22#23, tsn, December 11, 19910,

nd therefore, the policemen had more ample time to plant the

habu% Corollar to the Constitutional precept that, in all criminal prosecutions,

he accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrar is proved /&ection

([2], Article , Constitution of the !epublic of the 'hilippines0 is the rule that

n order to convict an accused the circumstances of the case must eclude all

nd each and ever hpothesis consistent with his innocence /0eople #s.

"anc$oco, 45 0$il 657 89:65;+ 0eople #s. onstante, 9 SRA 5


9/26

A es, sir%> ou handcuffed =den del Castillo immediatelL A "o, we do /sic0 not handcuffed /sic0 =den del Castillo%> Althou+h ou do /sic0 not handcuffed /sic0 =den del Castillo, the accused but virtuall

she was alread held in custod of the lawL A 8e effected the arrest%> &o ou be+un listin+ down the articles which is supposedl seiedL A ?pon the deliver of the seied articles from the searchin+ parties be+an listin+%> ou listed the articles in that prepared form, correctL A es, sir% [((]

> n our oint affidavit, ou stated in para+raph ) That we informed her Constitutional

!i+ht provided under the 19) 'hil% ConstitutionL A es, sir%> ou informed her of her ri+ht under the Constitution because ou wanted her to claim

ownership of the seied articlesL A 8e ust informed her about her constitutional ri+ht%

> &o that after informin+ her of her constitutional ri+ht she si+ned this receipt orinventor of seied articles, correctL

A es, sir%> &o ou asked her b interro+ation or 4uestion whether or not ou will concur to the

entries listed in this inventorL A es, sir%> ou also asked her that the search was conducted in a ver orderl mannerL A es, sir%> ou also asked her that nothin+ was destroed or lost inside the houseL A es, sir%> That ou also asked her that the members of the raidin+ team did not in an manner

subected /sic0 them to unreasonable treatmentL A es, sir%> And that the were not eposed to embarrassmentL A es, sir%> &ince ou shoot /sic0 several 4uestions and informin+ her of the constitution/al0

ri+ht/s0 under the 19) Constitution did ou tell her that ou have the ri+ht to be

assisted b counselL A told her that%% % %C*?!T<

> After ou had told the accused that she is entitled to have counsel now what did theaccused sa, if anL

A &he told me that she would +et a lawer% ATT% !B=!A@<> n effect, did she +et a lawerL A "ot immediatel%% % %> Thereafter was she able to +et a lawerL A 8hen we arrived at the camp her sister told us that she had alread hired a lawer%> n effect, did that lawer appear in the campL A never saw%> &o accused would /sic0 si+n /sic0 that instrument without the assistance of counselL A es, sir %[(5]

8hile '*3 'etallar testified that appellant was read her constitutional

+ht, it was not clearl shown that she was informed of her ri+ht not to si+n the

eceipt and that it can be used as an evidence a+ainst her% f appellant was

ndeed informed of her constitutional ri+ht, it is unusual for her to si+n the

eceipt acknowled+in+ ownership of the seied items without the assistance of

ounsel considerin+ that she wanted to +et a lawer% n 0eople #s. 3o,[(7] we

ound the inventor receipt si+ned b appellant inadmissible for bein+ violative

f her custodial ri+ht to remain silent, thus<

After the inventor had been prepared, '*2 Abulencia presented it to

ppellant for his si+nature without an showin+ that appellant was informed of

is ri+ht not to si+n such receipt and to the assistance of counsel% "either was

e warned that the same could be used as evidence a+ainst him% :aced with

imilar circumstances, this Court in 'eople v% $esmundo stated<

is true that the police were able to +et an admission from the accused#

ppellant that mariuana was found in her possession but said admission

mbodied in a document entitled 'A$'A'AT?"A previousl prepared b the

olice, is inadmissible in evidence a+ainst the accused#appellant for havin+

een obtained in violation of her ri+hts as a person under custodial

nvesti+ation for the commission of an offense% The records show that the

ccused#appellant was not informed of her ri+ht not to si+n the document

either was she informed of her ri+ht to the assistance of counsel and the fact

hat the document ma be used as evidence a+ainst her%

n 'eople vs% 'olicarpio, this Court held that such practice of inducin+

uspects to si+n receipts for propert alle+edl confiscated from their

ossession is unusual and violative of the constitutional ri+ht to remain silent,

i<

8hat the records show is that appellant was informed of his constitutional ri+ht

o be silent and that he ma refuse to +ive a statement which ma be used

a+ainst him, that is wh he refused to +ive a written statement unless it is

made in the presence of his lawer as shown b the paper he si+ned to thi

effect% ;owever, he was made to acknowled+e that the si /70 small plastic

ba+s of dried mariuana leaves were confiscated from him b si+nin+ a rec

and to si+n a receipt for the '2E%EE bill as purchase price of the dried

mariuana leaves he sold to 'at% .an+ila%*bviousl the appellant was the victim of a clever ruse to make him si+n th

alle+ed receipts which in effect are etra#udicial confessions of the

commission of the offense% ndeed it is unusual for appellant to be made to

si+n receipts for what were taken from him% t is the police officers who

confiscated the same who should have si+ned such receipts% "o doubt this

a violation of the constitutional ri+ht of the appellant to remain silent where

he was made to admit the commission of the offense without informin+ him

his ri+ht% &uch a confession obtained in violation of the Constitution is

inadmissible in evidence%

The nventor !eceipt si+ned b appellant is thus not onl inadmissible for

bein+ violative of appellants custodial ri+ht to remain silent it is also an

indicium of the irre+ularit in the manner b which the raidin+ team conduc

the search of appellants residence%

Assumin+ arguendo that appellant did waive her ri+ht to counsel, s

waiver must be voluntar, knowin+ and intelli+ent% To insure that a waiv

voluntar and intelli+ent, the Constitution[()] re4uires that for the ri+h

counsel to be waived, the waiver must be in writin+ and in the presence o

counsel of the accused%[(] There is no such written waiver in this case, m

less was an waiver made in the presence of the counsel since there wa

counsel at the time appellant si+ned the receipt% Clearl, appellant affied

si+nature in the inventor receipt without the assistance of counsel which

violation of her ri+ht under the Constitution%n all criminal cases, it is appellants constitutional ri+ht to be presum

innocent until the contrar is proved beond reasonable doubt% Thus in 0e

#s. 1el >orte,[(9] we said<

8e detest dru+ addiction in our societ% ;owever, we have the dut to prot

appellant where the evidence presented shows insufficient factual neus o

participation in the commission of the offense char+ed% n 'eople vs% @aa,

held<

The +overnments drive a+ainst ille+al dru+s deserves everbods support%

it cannot be pursued b i+noble means which are violative of constitutional

ri+hts% t is precisel when the +overnments purposes are beneficent that w

should be most on our +uard to protect these ri+hts% As 6ustice -randeis

warned lon+ a+o, the +reatest dan+ers to libert lurk in the insidious

encroachment b men of eal, well meanin+ without understandin+%

;?TT=D of the crime cha

a+ainst her and her immediate release from confinement is hereb ord

unless she is lawfull held in custod for another cause%The Director of the -ureau of Corrections is ordered to forth

implement this decision and to inform this Court, within ten /1E0 das f

receipt hereof, of the date appellant was actuall released from confinemeThe s$au and other s$au paraphernalias seied durin+ the search

forfeited in favor of the &tate% SO OR%&R&%.

[G.R. No*. 130D6>69. Mr+) 21, 2000]P&OP#& OF T


10/26

7, both of Art% , of !A 7(25 /"$e1angerous 1rugs Act of 9:4, as

%ended 0%[3] ;e was likewise ordered to pa a fine of '1,EEE,EEE%EE in the first

ase, and '12,EEE,EEE%EE in the second%[(] ;e is now before us on automatic

eview%he antecedent facts< :ollowin+ a series of bu#bust operations, the elements

f the &pecial *peration ?nit, "arcotics Command, apprehended a suspected

ru+ courier, .abel Cheun+ .ei 'o, after she delivered a transparent plastic

a+ containin+ a white crstalline substance to an informant, in full view of

A!C*. a+ents% 8hen 4uestioned, .abel Cheun+ .ei 'o cooperated with

he +overnment a+ents and revealed the name of accused Che Chun Tin+ as

he source of the dru+s% .isspped

*n 2) 6une 1997 the "arcotics Command deploed a team of a+ents for thentrapment and arrest of Che Chun Tin+% The team was composed of .aor

.arcelo $arbo, a certain Captain Campos,[5] 'Fnsp% !amond &antia+o,

'*3 !enato Campanilla, and a civilian interpreter% The members of the

A!C*. team were in two /20 vehicles< a "issan &entra &uper &aloon driven

.abel with 'Fnsp% &antia+o and &'*3 Campanilla as passen+ers and the

ther vehicle, with .aor $arbo, Captain Campos and the civilian interpreter

n board% At around ) oclock in the mornin+ the proceeded to the !oas

eafront $arden in 'asa Cit where Che Chun Tin+ was and had the place

nder surveillance% @ater, the moved to the .cDonalds parkin+ lot where the

ivilian interpreter transferred to the "issan car% .abel then called Che Chun

in+ throu+h her cellular phone and spoke to him in Chinese% Accordin+ to the

nterpreter, who translated to the "A!C*. a+ents the conversation between

.abel and Che Chun Tin+, .abel ordered one /10 kilo of s$au%At around 1E


11/26

e that as it ma, the inadmissibilit of the 5,5)%7 +rams of s$au in

vidence does not totall eonerate the accused% The ille+al search in ?nit 122

was preceded b a valid arrest% The accused was cau+ht in flagrante

elicto as a result of an entrapment conducted b "A!C*. operatives on the

asis of the information provided b .abel Cheun+ .ei 'o re+ardin+ the

ccusedHs ille+al trade% "A!C*. a+ents 'Fnsp% &antia+o and &'*3

Campanilla saw him handin+ over a ba+ of white crstalline substance to

.abel Cheun+ .ei 'o% ;is arrest was lawful and the seied ba+

f s$au wei+hin+ 999%(3 +rams was admissible in evidence, bein+ the fruit of

he crime% .isohe second assi+ned error hin+es on the credibilit of witnesses% As we have

onsistentl stressed in the maorit of appeals in criminal cases, appellate

ourts +ive wei+ht, and at times even finalit, to the findin+s of the trial ud+e

who is in a better position to determine the credibilit of witnesses, as he can

bserve firsthand their demeanor and deportment while testifin+% Appellate

ourts have none of the ud+es advanta+eous position the rel merel on the

old records of the case and on the ud+es discretion%As mentioned earlier, .abel Cheun+ .ei 'o turned hostile witness in the

ourse of the trial% The defense capitalied on such fact and hammered the

rosecution on this point, ar+uin+ that .abels testimon durin+ her cross#

amination virtuall belied the prosecutions factual theor of the case and

ast doubt on the testimon of the "A!C*. a+ents%ut we are not persuaded% .abel Cheun+ .ei 'o turned hostile witness

nderstandabl because of her adverse interest in the case% &he was

eparatel char+ed for violation of &ec% 15, Art% , !A 7(25, [17] althou+h she

was subse4uentl ac4uitted b the trial court on reasonable doubt% [1)] t is

herefore to be epected that she would be etremel cautious in +ivin+ her

estimon as it mi+ht incriminate her% At an rate, the testimon of the police

nformant in an ille+al dru+ case is not essential for the conviction of the

ccused since that testimon would merel be corroborative and cumulative%] ;ence, even if we concede that .abel Cheun+ .ei 'os testimon was

iscredited on account of the dismissal of the criminal case a+ainst her, the

rosecution could still rel on the testimonies of the arrestin+ officers and

ecure a conviction on the basis thereof%urther, the attempt of the accused to down+rade the testimonies of the

A!C*. a+ents is bereft of substantial basis since it has not been shown

hat the had an improper motive for testifin+ as the did% t would not be

miss to point out that "A!C*. a+ents are not ust ordinar witnesses but

re law enforcers% As compared to the baseless disclaimers of the witnesses

or the defense, the narration of the incident of the police officers is far more

worth of belief comin+ as it does from law enforcers who are presumed toave re+ularl performed their dut in the absence of proof to the contrar%9] :rom the evidence at hand, we find no reason to deni+rate their

eclarations%ndeed, there is no doubt from the records that the accused was cau+ht

n flagrante delicto, i.e%, in the act of deliverin+ s$au% The evidence for the

rosecution is both substantial and convincin+% At its core is the testimon of

Fnsp% &antia+o and &'*3 Campanilla who cate+oricall pointed to the

ccused as the person who handed to .abel a plastic ba+ of white crstalline

ubstance which, upon forensic eamination, was found positive

or %et$yla%p$eta%ine $ydroc$loride or s$au% As can be +leaned from the

ssailed decision of the trial court, the narration of events b the police officers

s positive, credible and entirel in accord with human eperience% t bears all

he earmarks of truth that it is etremel difficult for a rational mind not to +ive

redence to it% The testified in a clear, precise and strai+htforward manner,

nd even the ri+id cross#eamination b the defense could not dent the

ssence of their testimonies% "eoldAs re+ards the third assi+ned error, the accused 4uestions the accurac of the

aborator tests conducted b the forensic chemist on the seied articles% ;e

ontends that the '"' Crime @aborator should have subected the entire

99%(3 +rams and 5,5)%77 +rams of white crstalline substance taken from

im, to laborator eamination and not merel representative samples thereof

n milli+rams%he ar+ument is untenable% 'rimaril, there is no law or rule of evidence

e4uirin+ the forensic chemist to test the entire 4uantit of seied dru+s to

etermine whether the whole lot is reall prohibited or re+ulated dru+s as

uspected% *n the contrar, it has alwas been the standard procedure in the

"' Crime @aborator to test onl samples of the dru+s submitted for

laborator eamination% A sample taken from a packa+e ma be lo+ic

presumed to be representative of the whole contents of the packa+e%[2E]

.oreover, we held in one case that chemical analsis is not an indispens

prere4uisite to establish whether a certain substance offered in evidence

prohibited dru+% The abilit to reco+nie these dru+s can be ac4uired wit

an knowled+e of chemistr to such an etent that the testimon of a witn

on the point ma be entitled to +reat wei+ht% &uch technical knowled+e is

re4uired, and the de+ree of familiarit of a witness with such dru+s onl aff

the wei+ht and not the competenc of his testimon%[21] .anik At an rate, it was up to the defense to prove b clear and convincin+ evid

that the findin+s of the forensic chemist were erroneous% n the absenc

such evidence, the positive results of the tests conducted b the cheshould be accepted as conclusive% After all, she has in her favor

presumption that she re+ularl performed her official dut, which was to c

out those tests in accordance with the accepted standard procedure%[22]

All told, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has established the +u

the accused beond reasonable doubt in Crim% Case "o% 97#

Accordin+l, he must suffer for his serious crime of poisonin+ the health

future of this nation% ;owever, we refrain from imposin+ the ca

punishment% As amended b !A )759, &ec% 2E, Art% B of "$e 1ange

1rugs Act now provides in part that the penalt in &ec% 15, Art% , sha

applied if the dan+erous dru+ involved is, in the

of s$au or %et$yla%pet$a%ine $ydroc$loride 2EE +rams or more and

deliver or distribution of re+ulated dru+s without proper authorit is penal

with reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ran+in+ from '5EE,EE

to'1E,EEE,EEE%EE% Thus the law prescribes two /20 indivi

penalties, reclusion perpetua and death% 'ursuant to Art% 73 of "$e Re#

0enal ode, since there were neither miti+atin+ nor a++rava

circumstances attendin+ accusedHs violation of the law, the lesser pe

of reclusion perpetua is the proper imposable penalt%The le+islature never intended that where the 4uantit of the dan+erous d

involved eceeds those stated in &ec% 2E, the maimum penalt of death s

automaticall be imposed% "owhere in the amendator law is there a prov

from which such a conclusion ma be drawn% *n the contrar, this Court

alread concluded in 'eople v% $atward[23] that !A )759 did not amend Ar

of "$e Re#ised 0enal ode, and the rules therein were observed althou+h

cocaine subect of that case was also in ecess of the 4uantit provide

&ec% 2E%[2(] .aniks8ith respect to Crim% Case "o% 97#933, since the constitutional ri+ht of

accused a+ainst unreasonable searches and seiures was violated, w

rendered the evidence a+ainst him inadmissible, he is ac4uitted of the offechar+ed%:inall, we take this opportunit to remonstrate the law enforcement a+en

re+ardin+ respect for the constitutional ri+hts of persons suspected

committin+ crimes% As the phalan of our united efforts to stem the sur+in+

of dru+#traffickin+ in this countr, the police force is not onl epected to

well#trained and well#e4uipped in the detection and apprehension of

pushers, but more importantl, it must also be aware that arrests, searc

and seiures s$ould at all ti%es and in all instances e done wit$in t$e con

of t$e onstitution% 8hile we encoura+e an active and vi+orous

enforcement, we nevertheless defer to and uphold the sacredness

constitutional ri+hts% n the instant case, while the penalt of reclu

perpetua imposed b this Court on the accused ma be sufficient to put

awa for +ood, it is nonetheless lamentable that he will walk awa unpunis

in the other case of possession of more than 5,EEE +rams of ille+al narco

on account of a blunder which could have easil been avoided had"A!C*. officers faithfull adhered to the re4uirements of the Constitution;


12/26

ver immediatel to the Dan+erous Dru+s -oard and the "ational -ureau of

nvesti+ation for proper disposition%O OR%&R&%. .anikan

G.R. No. #69>03 O+tober >, 19>DCNT?= and T*@="T"*%% 'rior to Au+ust 7, 19( /hereinafter to be referred to without the ear0,

A$?@A!#!*>?= was one of the accused of !ebellion in Criminal Case "o%

.C#25#113 of .ilitar Commission "o% 25, both cases bein+ entitled G0eoplef t$e 0$ilippines #s. Jose Ma. Sison, et al %G &he was then still at lar+e%% At 11?= and "*@A&C* were

rrested b a Constabular &ecurit $roup /C&$0 at the intersection of .aon

treet and '% .ar+all &treet, >ueon Cit% The stated time is an alle+ation of

etitioners, not denied b respondents% The record does not disclose that a

warrant of arrest had previousl beeen issued a+ainst "*@A&C*%% At 12?= has been lon+ wanted b the militar for bein+ a hi+h

ankin+ officer of the Communist 'art of the 'hilippines, particularl

onnected with the .B Mara+atanFDoNa Andrea cases%n connection with the &earch 8arrant issued, the followin+ ma be stated<a0 The &earch 8arrant was issued in proceedin+s entitled G'eople of the

hilippines vs% .ila A+uilar#!o4ue, Accused, &earch 8arrant "o% E# (

or reellionG /the &=A!C; 8A!!A"T CA&=0% 6ud+e 'anos Court was

ranch %b0 t does not appear from the records before us that an application in writin+

was submitted b @t% Col% &aldaeno to 6ud+e 'aNo%c0 Accordin+ to the record, @t% Col% &aldaeno and his witness &FA Dionicio A%

apus, were eamined under oath b 6ud+e 'aNo but onl the deposition of

FA @apus has been submitted to us% The latter deposed that to his personalnowled+e, there were kept in the premises to be searched records,

ocuments and other papers of the C''F"'A and the "ational Democratic

ront, includin+ support mone from forei+n and local sources intended to be

sed for rebellion% 1

% n connection with the search made at 12ueon Cit :iscalHs *ffice /the

CT :&CA@, for short0 upon complaint filed b the C&$ a+ainst petitione

for G&ubversionF!ebellion andFor Conspirac to Commit !ebellionF&ubvers/b0 *n Au+ust 13th, the CT :&CA@ filed an nformation for Biolation of

'residential Decree "o% 33 /lle+al 'ossession of &ubversive Documents0

a+ainst petitioners before -ranch (2 of the .etropolitan Trial Court of >ue

Cit /the &?-B=!&B= D*C?.="T& CA&=0, respondent 6ud+e Antonio &antos, presidin+%/c0 *n Au+ust 17th, C&$ filed a .otion for !econsideration with the CT

:&CA@, prain+ that A$?@A!#!*>?= and "*@A&C* be char+ed with

&ubversion% The .otion was denied on "ovember 17th%)% /a0 *n &eptember 1Eth, the C&$ submitted an Amended !eturn in the

&=A!C; 8A!!A"T CA&= prain+, inter alia, that the C&$ be allowed to

retain the seied (31 documents and articles, in connection with cases tha

are presentl pendin+ a+ainst .ila A+uilar !o4ue before the >ueon Cit

:iscalHs *ffice and the court% D

/b0 *n &eptember 2th, petitioners were re4uired b 6ud+e 'ano to comm

on the Amended !eturn, which A$?@A!#!*>?= did on *ctober 1th, ra

the issue of the inadmissibilit of an evidence obtained pursuant to the

&earch 8arrant%/c0 *n December 13, 19(, 6ud+e 'aNo admitted the Amended !eturn and

ruled that the seied documents Gshall be subect to disposition of the tributrin+ the case a+ainst respondent%G% /a0 *n December 12th, petitioners filed a .otion to &uppress in the

&?-B=!&B= D*C?.="T& CA&=, prain+ that such of the (31 items

belon+in+ to them be returned to them% t was claimed that the proceedin+s

under the &earch 8arrant were unlawful% 6ud+e &antos denied the .otion

6anuar ), 195 on the +round that the validit of the &earch 8arrant has t

be liti+ated in the &=A!C; 8A!!A"T CA&=% ;e was apparentl not awa

of the *rder of 6ud+e 'aNo of December 13th issued in the &=A!C;

8A!!A"T CA&=%;ence, this 'etition for Certiorari, 'rohibition and mandamus to annul and

aside the /10 &earch 8arrant issued b respondent !TC 6ud+e 'aNo /20 h

*rder admittin+ the Amended !eturn and +rantin+ the .otion to !etain &e

tems and /30 *rder of respondent .TC 6ud+e &antos denin+ petitioners

.otion to &uppress%

This Court, on :ebruar 12, 195, issued a Temporar !estrainin+ *rder

enoinin+ the respondents or their dul authoried representatives from

introducin+ evidence obtained under the &earch 8arrant%The '=TT*"=!& principall assert that the &earch 8arrant is void beca

it is a +eneral warrant since it does not sufficientl describe with particulari

the thin+s subect of the search and seiure, and that probable cause has

been properl established for lack of searchin+ 4uestions propounded to th

applicantHs witness% The respondents, represented b the &olicitor $eneral

contend otherwise, addin+ that the 4uestions raised cannot be entertained

this present petition without petitioners first movin+ for the 4uashal of the

disputed &earch 8arrant with the issuin+ 6ud+e%8e find merit in the 'etition%&ection 3, Article B of the Constitution, +uarantees the ri+ht of the people

be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects a+ainst unreasonab

searches and seiures of whatever nature and for an purpose% t also

specificall provides that no &earch 8arrant shall issue ecept upon proba

cause to be determined b the 6ud+e or such other responsible officer as m

be authoried b law, after eamination under oath or affirmation of the

complainant and the witnesses he ma produce, and particularl describin

the place to be searched and the thin+s to be seied%The disputed &earch 8arrant /"o% E#(0 describes the personalities to be

seied as follows<Documents, papers and other records of the Commun

'art of the 'hihppinesF"ew 'eoples Arm andFor the

"ational Democratic :ront, such as .inutes of the 'ar

.eetin+s, 'lans of these +roups, 'ro+rams, @ist of

possible supporters, subversive books and instructions

manuals not otherwise available to the public, and sup

mone from forei+n or local sources%


13/26

is at once evident that the fore+oin+ &earch 8arrant authories the seiure

f personal properties va+uel described and not particularied% t is an all#

mbracin+ description which includes everthin+ conceivable re+ardin+ the

Communist 'art of the 'hilippines and the "ational Democratic :ront% t does

ot specif what the subversive books and instructions are what the manuals

ot otherwise available to the public contain to make them subversive or to

nable them to be used for the crime of rebellion% There is absent a definite

uideline to the searchin+ team as to what items mi+ht be lawfull seied thus

ivin+ the officers of the law discretion re+ardin+ what articles the should

eie as, in fact, taken also were a portable tpewriter and 2 wooden boes% t

s thus in the nature of a +eneral warrant and infrin+es on the constitutional

mandate re4uirin+ particular description of the thin+s to be seied% n the

ecent rulin+s of this Court, search warrants of similar description were

onsidered null and void for bein+ too +eneral% Thus<&ubversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, and other publications

to promote the obectives and purposes of the subversive or+aniations

known as .ovement for :ree 'hilippines% @i+ht#a#:ire .ovement and

April 7 .ovement% 6

The thin+s to be seied under the warrant issued b respondent ud+e

were described as Hsubversive documents, propa+anda materials, :As,

printin+ paraphernalia and all other subversive materials &uch description

Criminal Procedure Cases.docx

Documents

Transcript of Criminal Procedure Cases.docx