G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 LEON TAMBASEN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 2N ASSISTANT PRO!IN"IAL PROSE"#TOR GLORIA LASTIMOSA MAR"OS $%& HON. "I"ERO #. '#ER#BIN (% )(* +$$+(-y $* P/*(&(% Ju&/ o -)/ R/(o%$l T($l "ou- o N/o* O++(&/%-$l, B$%+) 44, B$+olo& "(-y, respondents .
FA"TS
On August 31, 1988, P/Sgt. Flumar Natuel applied for the issuane of a searh !arrant from the "#$$, alleging that he reeived information that petitioner had in his possession at his house %"& 1' Armalite (i)es *"ags + Ammos, -and renades, .0 $al. Pistols *"ags + Ammos, 2namite Stis and Su4versive ouments,% !hih artiles !ere %used or intended to 4e used% for illegal purposes. On the same da2, the appliation !as granted 42 the "#$$ !ith the issuane of Searh 5arrant No. 3'0, !hih allo!ed the sei6ure of the items spei7ed in the appliation.
At around '3 P.". of Septem4er 9, 1988, a polie team searhed the house of petitioner and sei6ed the follo!ing artiles t!o *: envelopes ontaining ash in the total amount of P1,., one *1 handset !/antenae *sic * sic, , one *1 ;A sic> one *1 A?@N$O one *1 $ (egulator Suppl2 10 B. 13.8 B 1: A"P C 1:8 BA$> one *1 4ro!n Aadem2 Note4oo + Assorted papers> and four * handsets 4atter2 pa.
On Septem4er 19, 1988, the "#$$, ating on petitionerDs urgent motion for the return of the sei6ed artiles, issued an order direting Sgt. Natuel to mae a return of the searh !arrant. #he follo!ing da2, Sgt. Natuel su4mitted a report to the ourt. Not onsidering the report as a %return in ontemplation of la!,% petitioner 7led another motion pra2ing that Sgt. Natuel 4e reEuired reEuired to su4mit a omplete and veri7ed inventor2 of the sei6ed artiles. #hereafter, #hereafter, Sgt. Natuel manifested that although he !as the appliant for the issuane of the searh !arrant, he !as not present !hen it !as served.
On Oto4er , 1988, petitioner 7led 4efore the "#$$ a motion pra2ing that the searh and sei6ure 4e delared illegal and that the sei6ed artiles 4e returned to him.
On eem4er :3, 1988, the "#$$ issued an order direting ?t. $ol. #orres to return the mone2 sei6ed to petitioner. #he ourt opined that in the implementation of the searh !arrant, an2 sei6ure should 4e limited to the spei7 items overed there42. @t said that the mone2 ould not 4e onsidered as %su4versive %su4versive douments%> it !as neither stolen nor the eGets of gam4ling.
#hree months later, the Soliitor eneral 7led 4efore the (#$, ranh , aolod $it2 a petition for certiorari seeing the annulment of the order of the "#$$ *$ivil $ase No. 0331. #he petition alleged that assuming that the sei6ure of the mone2 had 4een invalid, petitioner !as not entitled to its return iting the rulings in Alih v. Castro, 101 S$(A :9 *198 and Roan v . Gonzales, 10 S$(A '8 *198'. @n those ases, the $ourt held that pending the determination of the legalit2 of the sei6ure of the artiles, the2 should remain in custodia legis. #he petition also averred that a riminal omplaint for %an2 of the rimes against pu4li order as provided under $hapter @, #itle @@@ of the (evised Penal $ode% had 4een 7led !ith the $it2 Fisal *$ @.S. No. 88&1:39 and therefore, should the mone2 4e found as having 4een earmared for su4versive ativities, it should 4e on7sated pursuant to Artile 0 of the (evised Penal $ode.
On Hul2 :, 1989, (#$, ranh issued an order granting the petition for certiorari and direting the ler of ourt to return to the "#$$ the mone2 pending the resolution of the preliminar2 investigation 4eing onduted 42 the it2 proseutor on the riminal omplaint.
$onseEuentl2, petitioner 7led the instant petition for certiorari and prohi4ition pra2ing for the issuane of a temporar2 restraining order ommanding the it2 proseutor to ease and desist from ontinuing !ith the preliminar2 investigation and the (#$ from taing an2 step !ith respet to $ivil $ase No. 0331. -e also pra2ed that Searh 5arrant No. 3'0 and the sei6ure of his personal eGets 4e delared illegal and that the Order of Hul2 :, 1989 4e reversed and annulled.
ISS#E 5hether or not the (#$, ranh gravel2 a4used its disretion in direting that the mone2 sei6ed from petitionerDs house, spei7all2 the amount of P1,., 4e retained and ept in custodia legis
HEL
;
On its fae, the searh !arrant violates Setion 3, (ule 1:' of the (evised (ules of $ourt, !hih prohi4its the issuane of a searh !arrant for more than one spei7 oGense. #he aption of Searh 5arrant No. 3'0 re)ets the violation of t!o speial la!s P.. No. 18'' for illegal possession of 7rearms, ammunition and eIplosives> and (.A. No. 1, the Anti&Su4version ?a!. Searh 5arrant No. 3'0 !as therefore a %satter&shot !arrant% and totall2 null and void.
"oreover, 42 their sei6ure of artiles not desri4ed in the searh !arrant, the polie ated 4e2ond the parameters of their authorit2 under the searh !arrant. Setion :, Artile @@@ of the 198 $onstitution reEuires that a searh !arrant should partiularl2 desri4e the things to 4e sei6ed. %#he evident purpose and intent of the reEuirement is to limit the things to 4e sei6ed to
those, and onl2 those, partiularl2 desri4ed in the searh !arrant C to leave the oJers of the la! !ith no disretion regarding !hat artiles the2 should sei6e, to the end that unreasona4le searhes and sei6ures ma2 not 4e made and that a4uses ma2 not 4e ommitted%. #he same onstitutional provision is also aimed at preventing violations of seurit2 in person and propert2 and unla!ful invasions of the santit2 of the home, and giving remed2 against suh usurpations !hen attempted. $learl2 then, the mone2 !hih !as not indiated in the searh !arrant, had 4een illegall2 sei6ed from petitioner. #he fat that the mem4ers of the polie team !ere doing their tas of pursuing su4versives is not a valid eIuse for the illegal sei6ure. #he presumption juris tantum of regularit2 in the performane of oJial dut2 annot 42 itself prevail against the onstitutionall2 proteted rights of an individual. Although pu4li !elfare is the foundation of the po!er to searh and sei6e, suh po!er must 4e eIerised and the la! enfored !ithout transgressing the onstitutional rights of the iti6ens.
For the retention of the mone2 sei6ed 42 the polie oJers, approval of the ourt !hih issued the searh !arrant is neessar2 *People v. esmundo, :19 S$(A 3 K1993L. @n lie manner, onl2 the ourt !hih issued the searh !arrant ma2 order their release *#emple v. ela $ru6, ' S$(A :90 K19L> Pagalina!an v. ome6, :1 S$(A 1:0 K19'L. Setion 3*: of Artile @@@ of the 198 $onstitution provides that evidene o4tained in violation of the right against unreasona4le searhes and sei6ures shall 4e inadmissi4le for an2 purpose in an2 proeeding. #he information in $riminal $ase No. 801, !ith petitioner as the sole aused, !as ordered Euashed 42 the trial ourt and the proseutionDs motion for the reonsideration of the Euashal order had 4een denied.
