Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
plain&-appellee,
vs.
ROBERTO
SALANGUIT
y
KO,
accused-appellant. Facts:
[G.R.
Nos.
133254-55.
April
19,
2001] SECOND
DIVISION
On December 26, 1995, Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied for a warrant in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Dasmarias, Cavite, to search the residence of accused-appellant Robert Salanguit y Ko on Binhagan St., Novaliches, Quezon City. He presented as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua, who tes[ed that as a poseur-buyer, he was able to purchase 2.12 grams of shabu from accused- appellant. The sale took place in accused-appellants room, and Badua saw that the shabu was taken by accused-appellant from a cabinet inside his room. The applica[on was granted, and a search warrant was later issued by Presiding Judge Dolores L. Espaol.
Prosecu[on
Version:
At
about
10:30
p.m.
of
December
26,
1995,
a
group
of
about
10
policemen,
along
with
one
civilian
informer,
went
to
the
residence
of
accused-appellant
to
serve
the
warrant.
The
police
opera[ves
knocked
on
accused-appellants
door,
but
nobody
opened
it.
They
heard
people
inside
the
house,
apparently
panicking.
The
police
opera[ves
then
forced
the
door
open
and
entered
the
house.
A`er
showing
the
search
warrant
to
the
occupants
of
the
house,
Lt.
Cortes
and
his
group
started
searching
the
house.
They
found
12
small
heat-sealed
transparent
plas[c
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.
Version
of
Defense:
On
the
night
of
December
26,
1995,
as
they
were
about
to
leave
their
house,
they
heard
a
commo[on
at
the
gate
and
on
the
roof
of
their
house.
Suddenly,
about
20
men
in
civilian
acre,
brandishing
long
rearms,
climbed
over
the
gate
and
descended
through
an
opening
in
the
roof.
When
accused-appellant
demanded
to
be
shown
a
search
warrant,
a
piece
of
paper
inside
a
folder
was
waved
in
front
of
him.
As
accused-appellant
fumbled
for
his
glasses,
however,
the
paper
was
withdrawn
and
he
had
no
chance
to
read
it.
Accused-appellant
claimed
that
he
was
ordered
to
stay
in
one
place
of
the
house
while
the
policemen
conducted
a
search,
forcibly
opening
cabinets
and
taking
his
bag
containing
money,
a
licensed
.45
caliber
rearm,
jewelry,
and
canned
goods.
A`ermath:
A`er
the
search,
the
accused
together
with
the
conscated
contraband
were
taken
to
the
police
sta[on.
The RTC convicted the accused of viola[on of Sec. 16, Republic Act No. 6425 and to suer the penalty of indeterminate sentence with a minimum of six (6) months of arresto mayor and a maximum of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional and in viola[on of Sec. 8 of the same law and sentenced to suer the penalty of reculsion perpetua and a ne of Php 700,000.00
Issues:
1. 2. 3.
Whether
or
not
the
Search
Warrant
issued
is
valid.
Whether
or
not
the
marijuana
seized
falls
under
the
plain
view
doctrine.
Whether
or
not
the
force
used
in
the
raid
was
necessary.
Page 1 of 2
Held:
1. Accused
assailed
the
validity
of
the
warrant
on
three
grounds:
(1)
that
there
was
no
probable
cause
to
search
for
drug
paraphernalia;
(2)
that
the
search
warrant
was
issued
for
more
than
one
specic
oense;
and
(3)
that
the
place
to
be
searched
was
not
described
with
sucient
par[cularity. On
the
rst
ground,
it
was
tes[ed
by
SPO1
Edmund
Badua,
the
intelligence
ocer
who
acted
as
a
poseur-buyer
that
when
he
went
inside
the
house
of
the
accused,
he
saw
the
accused
get
the
shabu
in
the
cabinet
which
is
in
the
room
of
the
accused.
Hence,
there
was
probable
cause
as
to
the
shabu
but
no
tes[mony
was
oered
in
regards
to
the
drug
paraphernalia.
This
does
not
mean
however
that
the
search
warrant
as
a
whole
is
void
or
invalid.
Accordingly,
it
was
held
that
the
rst
part
of
the
search
warrant,
authorizing
the
search
of
accused-appellants
house
for
an
undetermined
quan[ty
of
shabu,
is
valid,
even
though
the
second
part,
with
respect
to
the
search
for
drug
paraphernalia,
is
not. On
the
second
ground,
the
accused
avers
that
one
warrant
should
be
issued
for
shabu,
one
warrant
should
be
issued
for
marijuana
and
one
warrant
should
be
for
drug
paraphernalia.
The
Court
held
that
one
warrant
would
suce
since
all
acts
were
covered
under
Republic
Act
No.
6425,
a
special
law
that
deals
specically
with
dangerous
drugs
which
are
subsumed
into
prohibited
and
regulated
drugs
and
denes
and
penalizes
categories
of
oenses
which
are
closely
related
or
which
belong
to
the
same
class
or
species.
On
the
third
ground,
while
the
address
stated
in
the
warrant
is
merely
Binhagan
St.,
San
Jose,
Quezon
City,
the
trial
court
took
note
of
the
fact
that
the
records
of
Search
Warrant
contained
several
documents
which
iden[ed
the
premises
to
be
searched,
to
wit:
1)
the
applica[on
for
search
warrant
which
stated
that
the
premises
to
be
searched
was
located
in
between
No.
7
and
11
at
Binhagan
Street,
San
Jose,
Quezon
City;
2)
the
deposi[on
of
witness
which
described
the
premises
as
a
house
without
a
number
located
at
Binhagan
St.,
San
Jose,
Quezon
City;
and
3)
the
pencil
sketch
of
the
loca[on
of
the
premises
to
be
searched.
In
fact,
the
police
ocers
who
raided
appellants
house
under
the
leadership
of
Police
Senior
Inspector
Rodolfo
Aguilar
could
not
have
been
mistaken
as
Inspector
Aguilar
resides
in
the
same
neighborhood
in
Binhagan
where
appellant
lives
and
in
fact
Aguilars
place
is
at
the
end
of
appellants
place
in
Binhagan.
Moreover,
the
house
raided
by
Aguilars
team
is
undeniably
the
house
of
the
accused
and
it
was
really
the
accused
who
was
the
target.
The
raiding
team
even
rst
ascertained
through
their
informant
that
appellant
was
inside
his
residence
before
they
actually
started
their
opera[on. The
marijuana
found
was
covered
with
newspaper
and
thus
does
not
fall
under
the
doctrine
of
plain
view.
What
was
in
plain
view
were
the
newspaper
and
not
the
marijuana.
Accordingly,
the
marijuana
is
inadmissible
in
evidence
but
the
consca[on
is
valid
and
must
be
upheld. The
occupants
of
the
house,
especially
accused-appellant,
refused
to
open
the
door
despite
the
fact
that
the
searching
party
knocked
on
the
door
several
[mes.
Furthermore,
the
agents
saw
the
suspicious
movements
of
the
people
inside
the
house.
These
circumstances
jus[ed
the
searching
partys
forcible
entry
into
the
house,
founded
as
it
is
on
the
apprehension
that
the
execu[on
of
their
mission
would
be
frustrated
unless
they
do
so.
Furthermore,
no
tes[monies
from
disinterested
par[es
were
oered
to
corroborate
the
story
of
the
accused
that
the
police
used
excessive
force
in
enforcing
the
warrant.
2.
3.
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. Q-95-64357, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City, nding accused- appellant Roberto Salanguit y Ko guilty of possession of illegal drugs under 16 of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, and sentencing him to suer a prison term ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, and four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and ordering the consca[on of 11.14 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride is AFFIRMED. In Criminal Case No. Q-95-64358, the decision of the same court nding accused-appellant Roberto Salanguit y Ko guilty of possession of prohibited drugs under 8 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, and sentencing him to suer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a ne of P700,000.00 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. However, the consca[on of the 1,254 grams of marijuana, as well as the 11.14 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and its disposi[on as ordered by the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Page 2 of 2