People vs Francisco G.R. No. 129035, August 22, 2002 Search and Seizure See: Rule 126 Section 4 (Requisites for Issuing Search Warrant) FACT! Federico Verona and his live-in girlfriend, Annabelle Francisco, were placed placed under under survei surveilla llanc nce e after after the police police conr conrmed med,, throug through h a test-b test-buy uy operation, that they were engaged in selling shabu. SP! "eneros and SP# Albert Alb erto o San $uan $uan appli applied ed for a searc search h warr warrant ant befor before e the %"& 'anila 'anila to authori(e them to search the premises at )!! '. *i(on St., &aloocan &ity. Attac Attached hed to the the applic applicati ation on was was the After fter-Su -Surve rveill illanc ance e %eport eport of SP! SP! "eneros. "eneros. +t stated that ante aradilla, who claimed to be one of Federico Veron eronas as runn runner ers s in the the ille illega gall drug drugs s oper operat atio ions ns,, alle allege gedl dly y soug sought ht the the assistance of SP! "eneros for the arrest of Verona. "he search warrant was subseuently issued by $udge ayhon authori(ing the search of shabu and paraphernalia at /o. )!! '. *i(on Street, &aloocan &ity. Annabelle Francisco, who was then nine months pregnant, was resting inside the second 0oor masters bedroom of their two- storey apartment at /o. )!1 '. *i(on Street, &aloocan &ity, when she heard a loud bang downstairs as if somebody forcibly opened the front door. 2ight policemen suddenly entered her bedroom and conducted a search for about an hour. Accused-appellant inuired about their identities but they refused to answer. +t was only at the police station where she found out that the team of searchers was led by SP! "eneros. "he police team, along with a arangay &hairwoman and a 3agawad enforced the warrant and sei(ed the following4 ). ne Salad Set wrapped in plastic containing !51 grams shabu !. Several plastics in di6erent si(es 5. "wo rolls of aluminum foil strips #. Five improvised tooter water pipes and two improvised burners 7. "wo cellular phones 8. ne monitoring device with cord 9. Several pieces aluminum foil strips :. "wo mas;ing tapes )1. PhP !!, ::1 "he police team also sei(ed the amount of P)91,111.11, a Fiat car,
imposing upon the accused the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Francisco rancisco appealed appealed and raised raised several several issues issues includin including g the assignme assignment nt of error errors s again against st the trial trial court court when when it admitt admitted ed the the eviden evidence ce agains againstt her, her, notwithstanding that the search conducted was illegal and violative of her constitutional rights, and that she must be acuitted after nding that the searach was conducted at a place di6erent from what was described in the search warrant. "he trial court upheld its decision and stated that despite the fact that the search warrant in uestion was served at apartment /o. )!1 and not at the specic address stated therein which is )!! '. *i(on St., &aloocan &ity will not render the search and sei(ure illegal. >hile it is true that the rationale behind behind the consti constitut tution ional al and proce procedu dural ral reui reuire remen ments ts that that the sear search warrant must particularly particularly describe the place to be searched is to the end that no unreasonable search warrant and sei(ure may not be made and abuses may not be committed, however, this reuirement is not without e?ception. +t is the prevailing rule in our
"#$! >hether or not the search conducted was valid and reasonable %$&'! /o. "he basic guarantee to the protection protection of the privacy and sanctity of a person, his home and his possessions against unreasonable intrusions of the State is articulated in Section !, Article +++ of the &onstitution, which reads4 "*2 %+*" F "*2 P2PB2 " 2 S2&C%2 +/ "*2+% P2%S/S, *CS2S, PAP2%S, A/ 2FF2&"S AA+/S" C/%2AS/AB2 S2A%&*2S A/ S2+DC%2S F >*A"2V2% /A"C%2 A/ F% A/E PC%PS2 S*ABB 2 +/V+BAB2, A/ / S2A%&* >A%%A/" % >A%%A/" F A%%2S" S*ABB +SSC2 2&2P" CP/ P%AB2 &ACS2 " 2 2"2%'+/2 P2%S/ABBE E "*2 $C2 AF"2% 2A'+/A"+/ C/2% A"* % AFF+%'A"+/ F "*2 &'PBA+/A/" A/ "*2 >+"/2SS2S *2 'AE P%C&2, A/ PA%"+&CBA%BE 2S&%++/ "*2 PBA&2 " 2 S2A%&*2 S2A%&*2 A/ "*2 P2%S/S % "*+/S "*+/S " 2 S2+D2. S2+D2. For the validity of a search warrant, the &onstitution reuires that there be a particular description description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei(ed. "he rule is that a description of a place to be searched is su@cient if the o@cer o@cer with with the the warran warrantt can, can, with with reaso reasonab nable le e6ort, e6ort, ascert ascertain ain and iden identi tify fy the the plac place e inte intend nded ed and and dist distin ingu guis ish h it from from othe otherr plac places es in the the community. Any designation or description ;nown to the locality that leads the o@cer unerringly to it satises the constitutional reuirement.
Specically, the reuisites for the issuance of a valid search warrant are4 G)H probable cause is presentI G!H such presence is determined personally by the
change is proscribed by the &onstitution which reuires inter alia the search warran warrantt to partic particula ularly rly descr describe ibe the place to be searc searched hed as well well as the persons or things to be sei(ed. +t would concede to police o@cers the power of choosing the place to be searched, even if it not be delineated in the warrant. +t would open wide the door to abuse of the search process, and gran grantt to o@ce o@cers rs e?ec e?ecut utin ing g a sear search ch warr warran antt that that disc discrretio etion n whic which h the the &onstitution has precisely removed from them. "he particulari(ation of the description of the place to be searched may properly be done only by the $udge, and only in the warrant itselfI it cannot be left to the discretion discretion of the police o@cers conducting the search. All told, the e?clusionary rule necessarily necessarily comes into play, to wit4 Art. Art. +++, +++, Sec. Sec. 5 G!H, G!H, ): ):98 98 &ons &onsti titu tuti tion on.. -- A/E A/E 2V 2V+ +2/ 2/&2 &2 " "A+/2 A+/2 +/ V+BA"+/ F "*+S % "*2 P%2&2+/ S2&"+/ S*ABB 2 +/A'+SS+B2 F% A/E PC%PS2 +/ A/E P%&22+/. &onseuently, all the items sei(ed during the illegal search are prohibited from from bein being g us used ed in evid eviden ence ce.. Ab Abse sent nt thes these e item items s pres presen ente ted d by the the prosecution, the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime charged loses its basis. "he e?clusion e?clusion of unlawfully unlawfully sei(ed evidence was the only practical means of enforcing enforcing the constitut constitutiona ionall inith >ithout out this this e?clusi e?clusionar onary y rule, rule, the constitution constitutional al right right would would be so ephemeral ephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual ne?us with the freedom from all brutish means of coercing evidence. n another note, the &ourt found disturbing the variety of the items sei(ed by the searching team in this case. +n the return of search warrant, they admitted admitted the sei(ur sei(ure e of cellular cellular phones, phones, money and televisio televisionJmon nJmonitor itoring ing device items that are not within the palest ambit of shabu paraphernalia, which were the only items authori(ed to be sei(ed. >hat is more disturbing is the suggestion that some items sei(ed were not reported in the return of search warrant, li;e the Fiat car, ban;boo;s, and money. +n an attempt to
RAT"(! Rule 12) earc* an+ eiure. ection -. Reuisites /or "ssuing
searc* searc* arrant. arrant. A search warrant shall not issue ece!t u!on !ro"a"le cause in connection with one s!eci#c o$ense to "e deter%ined !ersonall& "& the 'usdge after ea%ination under oath or ar%ation of the co%!lainant and the witnesses he %a& !roduce and !articularl& descri"ing the !lace to "e searched and the things to "e seized which %a& "e an&where in the *hili!!ines+
