People vs. Salanguit

People vs. Salanguit
GR No. 133254-55, April 19, 2001


FACTS:

Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied for a warrant in the RTC to search the residence of accused-appellant Robert Salanguit y Ko.

He presented as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua, who testified that as a poseur-buyer, he was able to purchase 2.12 grams of shabu from accused-appellant. People vs. Salanguit

The sale took place in accused-appellant's room, and Badua saw that the shabu was taken by accused-appellant from a cabinet inside his room.

The application was granted, and a search warrant was later issued.

The police operatives knocked on accused-appellant’s door, but nobody opened it.

They heard people inside the house, apparently panicking. People vs. Salanguit
The police operatives then forced the door open and entered the house.

After showing the search warrant to the occupants of the house, Lt. Cortes and his group started searching the house. People vs. Salanguit
They found 12 small heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance, a paper clip box also containing a white crystalline substance, and two bricks of dried leaves which appeared to be marijuana wrapped in newsprint having a total weight of approximately 1,255 grams.

A receipt of the items seized was prepared, but the accused-appellant refused to sign it. People vs. Salanguit

After the search, the police operatives took accused-appellant with them to Station 10, EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City, along with the items they had seized.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the search warrant was valid. People vs. Salanguit

HELD:

Rule 126, §4 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that a search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. People vs. Salanguit

The fact that there was no probable cause to support the application for the seizure of drug paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion that the search warrant is void.

Read: Prudente vs. Judge Dayrit

This fact would be material only if drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police.

The fact is that none was taken by virtue of the search warrant issued. People vs. Salanguit

If at all, therefore, the search warrant is void only insofar as it authorized the seizure of drug paraphernalia, but it is valid as to the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride as to which evidence was presented showing probable cause as to its existence.

It would be a drastic remedy indeed if a warrant, which was issued on probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized on the basis thereof, is to be invalidated in toto because the judge erred in authorizing a search for other items not supported by the evidence. People vs. Salanguit

Accordingly, we hold that the first part of the search warrant, authorizing the search of accused-appellant's house for an undetermined quantity of shabu, is valid, even though the second part, with respect to the search for drug paraphernalia, is not.

Accused-appellant contends that the warrant was issued for more than one specific offense because possession or use of methamphetamine hydrochloride and possession of drug paraphernalia are punished under two different provisions of R.A. No. 6425. People vs. Salanguit

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. People vs. Salanguit

A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched.

The search warrant authorized the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu but not marijuana. People vs. Salanguit

However, seizure of the latter drug is being justified on the ground that the drug was seized within the "plain view" of the searching party.

This is contested by accused-appellant.

Under the "plain view doctrine," unlawful objects within the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. People vs. Salanguit
For this doctrine to apply, there must be:

1. prior justification;
2. inadvertent discovery of the evidence; and
3. immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before the police.

The question is whether these requisites were complied with by the authorities in seizing the marijuana in this case. People vs. Salanguit

Because the location of the shabu was indicated in the warrant and thus known to the police operatives, it is reasonable to assume that the police found the packets of the shabu first.

Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed, the "plain view doctrine" can no longer provide any basis -for admitting the other items subsequently found.

Read: People vs. Montilla

A search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to the person of the one arrested and the premises within his immediate control. People vs. Salanguit
The rationale for permitting such a search is to prevent the person arrested from obtaining a weapon to commit violence, or to reach for incriminatory evidence and destroy it.

The police failed to allege in this case the time when the marijuana was found, i.e., whether prior to, or contemporaneous with, the shabu subject of the warrant, or whether it was recovered on accused-appellant's person or in an area within his immediate control. People vs. Salanguit

Its recovery, therefore, presumably during the search conducted after the shabu had been recovered from the cabinet, as attested to by SPO1 Badua in his depostion, was invalid.

The marijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint.

There was no apparent illegality to justify their seizure. People vs. Salanguit

READ FULL TEXT