Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
JUSTICE ON WHEELS
Malapatan, Sarangani Province

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 6058-16

Plaintiff,

- versus - - for –

SONNY IDIA BAIGTU @ “MALIK”, VIOL. OF SEC. 5, RA 9165

Accused.
X - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - -- -X

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

ACCUSED, through counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office,

and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully move to suppress the
evidence against the accused. In support hereof,

PREFATORY

The information, reads; “That on November 18, 2015, at

about 9:00 P.M., in Purok Magkaisa, Barangay Tuyan, Malapatan,
Sarangani Province, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver to PO1
Gereme G. Manlunas, a poseour buyer, one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride locally known as shabu, a dangerous drug,
weighing Zero point zero three eight three (0.0383) grams later
marked as GGM 11-18-2015, in the amount of Five Hundred Pesos
(P500.00), Philippine Currency, knowing fully well that he has no
legal authority to sell the same.”

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Alabel, Sarangani Province, January 13, 2016.

On or about 6:30 in the morning of 09 December 2014, members

of Kiamba Municipal Police Station served Search Warrant N0 16-161-
16 JOW, issued by HON OSCAR P NOEL, JR., issued against the
herein accused. The warrant was issued for the search and recovery
of firearm and ammunition. During the execution of the search warrant,
no firearm was recovered instead, packs of marijuana was recovered.
As a result of which, information for possession of prohibited drug was
filed against the herein accused.

EVIDENCES

The prosecution presented the search warrant number 19-28-

JOW, to prove the validity of the search conducted by the peace
 officers and the affidavits of the team leader, designated searching
and seizing officer, evidence custodian and photographer. The
object of the search was firearm and ammunition only. (Records).

In paragraph 5 of the affidavit executed by PI Juanito C. Castilli,

Jr., designated searching and seizing officer, he averred;

“5. That, during the course of our search, we were able to

discover several packs of marijuana placed inside a box, placed
under the bed of the suspect. x x x x x.(Records)

ISSUE

1. Whether or not, the alleged prohibited drug found during the

service of search warrant intended for firearm and
ammunition can be used as evidence against the accused.

DISCUSSION

In resolving the issue, worthy to note the provisions of the

Constitution, decision of the Supreme Court, and Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to wit;

Section 2, Article III of the Constitution- “The right of the people

to be secure in their persons, houses, paper and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause 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 persons or things to be
seized. (Underscoring ours)

Section 1, Rule 126 of The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

states;

Section 1. Search warrant defined. _ A search warrant is an order in

writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by
a judge, and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search
for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.

A reading to the definition of search warrant, peace officers are

mandated to bring to the Court only those listed and described items.
Likewise, the above quoted Constitutional provision, is also directing
the judge to indicate with clarity what must be taken or things to be
seized. Otherwise stated, the police have no power and discretion to
expand the scope of the things to be seized.

In the case of Vicente del Rosario vs. People of the Philippines,

358 SCRA 373, The Honorable Supreme Court, said;
 “In this case, the firearm was not found inadvertently
and in plain view. It was found as a result of a meticulous
search in the kitchen of the petitioner’s house. This firearm,
to emphasize, was not mentioned in the search warrant.
Hence, the seizure was illegal. The seizure without warrant
was in plain violation of the law and the Constitution. True
that as an exception, the police may seize without warrant
illegally possessed firearm or contraband for that matter,
inadvertently found in plain view. However, the seizure of
evidence in plain view applies only where the police officer is
not searching for evidence against the accused, but
inadvertently come across an incriminating object.”

Page-2

Cont…………………………………….Page-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the above quoted decision, the Honorable Supreme Court said

that “plain view doctrine” is not applicable when officers of the law are
searching for evidence against the accused and they discovered and
seized another prohibited item during the course of the search;

In the case at bar, the police were specifically directed to search

for firearm and ammunition and prohibited drugs. While searching for
the described firearm in the warrant, they found marijuana and
charged the accused for possession of prohibited drugs. Should we
allow this to happened, peace officers can go on “fishing expedition”
of evidences and charged the accused based on the nature of the
prohibition of the evidence found against him. In this situation, the
Honorable Supreme Court, said;

“Evidence obtained during an illegal search tending to

confirm or actually confirming initial information or suspicion of
felonious activity is absolutely inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding, the same being the fruit of a poisonous tree".
( People vs. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432.)

In the case of People vs. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, the

Honorable Supreme Court, said;

“When the evidence was secured on the occasion of an

unreasonable search and seizure, the same is tainted and
illegal and should therefore be excluded for being the
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.”

The Honorable Supreme Court went on by saying;

 "The exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence was the only
practical means of enforcing the Constitutional injunction against
unreasonable searches and seizures". (Paper Industries Corp. of
the Phils. vs. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253.)

Henceforth, for not being specifically described in the search

warrant and not the object of the search, the packs of marijuana
cannot be used as evidence against the accused being the proverbial
fruit of a poisonous tree. The case against the accused must be
dismissed.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the instant

motion be given due course and the case against the accused be
ordered dismissed.
Page-3

Cont………………………………… Page-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other relief, just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Alabel, Sarangani Province, 09 July 2015.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Department of Justice
Sarangani District Office
Alabel, Sarangani Province
By:

SALVADOR G. TALAMAYAN
Public Attorney III
Roll N0. 43509
IBP OR NO. 894010-06 Jan 15
MCLE COMP NO.IV-0010737-21 Dec 12
Email add: paosarangani_do@yahoo.com
Mobile Number: 09274851104

NOTICE

The Clerk of Court, Justice on Wheels

Malungon, Sarangani Province

G r e e t i n g s:
 Please submit immediately the foregoing Motion for and approval
of the Honorable Court and set for hearing on 20 July 2015 9:00 o’clock
on the morning.

SALVADOR G. TALAMAYAN
Provincial Prosecutor
Alabel, Sarangani Province

G r e e t I n g s:

Please take notice that the foregoing Motion will be submitted on

20 July 2015 at 9:00 o’clock in the morning for the consideration and
approval of the Honorable Court.

SALVADOR G. TALAMAYAN
CC: Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.