PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.

DANILO
SIMBAHON y QUIATZON, appellant.
On April 22, 1995, the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 23, issued Search Warrant,
That about 3:00 oclock in the early morning of
April 23, 1995, police operatives, together with
the chairman of the barangay served Search
upon Danilo Simbahon, Maricar Morgia, and
Charito Mangulabnan at their residence at No.
771 Roxas Street, Sampaloc, Manila, the team
when they gained entry into the house and,
rounding up all the occupants found therein,
herded them to the sala.
Thereafter, they began conducting a search of all
the rooms in accordance with the search warrant;
that in the room occupied by live-in partners
Danilo Simbahon and Charito Mangulabnan, the
police officers found under the bed a brick of
marijuana, wrapped in a newspaper and placed
inside a plastic and a black bullet pouch
containing six (6) live ammunitions, while in the
room occupied by Maricar Morgia, the operative
recovered a green plastic pencil case containing
small transparent sachets with white crystalline
substance suspected to be shabu (and five (5)
pieces of .38 caliber live ammunitions. When
lastly the living room was searched, the
policemen found therein a red and black
synthetic case. Inside the case were three (3)
pieces of small transparent plastic sachets
containing suspected shabu, some sniffing
paraphernalias such as improvised burner, tooter,
scissors, eight (8) strips of aluminum foil, plastic
sachets with residue, and empty plastic sachets.
After the search, an inventory receipt of the items
seized from the house of the suspects was
prepared and, together with an affidavit of
orderly search, was signed by Danilo Simbahon;
that the three accused were then arrested and
brought to the precinct for investigation. The
ammunitions recovered were sent to the Firearms
and Explosive Unit, Camp Crame, Quezon City, to
determine their identities and, certifications were
issued by said office to the effect that accused
Maricar Morgia and Danilo Simbahon were not
licensed/registered firearm/ammunitions holders
of any kind and caliber. The other evidence
recovered were brought to the National Bureau of
Investigation for laboratory examination and were
found to be positive for shabuand marijuana as
evidenced by.
Separate informations were filed against
Danilo Simbahon, Charito Mangulabnan, and
Maricar Morgia for violation of RA 6425, as
amended, and PD 1866.
The three accused were arraigned on June 2,
1995
and
respectively
pleaded
not
guilty. Thereafter,
upon
motion
of
the
prosecution,
the
charges
against
Charito
Mangulabnan were dismissed on the ground that
she had no participation in the crimes charged

against her. The cases were then consolidated

and jointly tried against Danilo Simbahon and
Maricar Morgia.After trial
Maricar Morgia y Mangulabnan was ACQUITTED of
the charges against her.
While Danilo Simbahon y was found guilty thereof
for violation of RA 6425
Held:
We find that the prosecutions evidence on the
identification of the marijuana allegedly seized
from appellant is demonstrably weak, unreliable
and unconvincing. The prosecution failed to
identify that the marijuana presented in court
was the very same marijuana allegedly seized
from appellant. Such failure to identify the corpus
delicti of the crime charged against the appellant
or to establish the chain of custody cannot but
inure to the detriment of the prosecutions case.
The prosecutions failure to explain why the
markings were no longer on the bricks of
marijuana leaves is certainly damaging to its
case. The prosecution must ensure that the item
presented in court is the very same item seized
from an accused in order to discourage tampering
with the evidence. Its failure to do so, therefore,
raised serious doubt as to appellants guilt.
While appellant may be deemed to have
waived his right to question the legality of the
search warrant and the admissibility of the
evidence seized for failure to raise his objections
at the opportune time, however, the record shows
serious defects in the search warrant itself which
render the same null and void.
The caption as well as the body of Search
Warrant show that it was issued for more than
one offense for violation of RA 6425 and for
violation of PD 1866. The search warrant violates
Section 3, Rule 123 of the Revised Rules of Court,
which prohibits the issuance of a search warrant
for more than one specific offense.
Likewise, the warrant failed to describe the
place
to
be
searched
with
sufficient
particularity. The rule is that a description of a
place to be searched is sufficient if the officer
with the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended. In the
case at bar, only the application for search
warrant contained the address of the place to be
searched. The search warrant issued by the court
merely referred to appellants residence as
premises, without specifying its address. The
Constitution and the Rules of Court limit the place
to be searched only to those described in the
warrant. The absence of a particular description
in the search warrant renders the same void.
Finally, the seized marijuana was not
mentioned in the search warrant issued for the
search of appellants house. The seizure by the
police officers conducting the search of articles
not described in the search warrant was beyond
the parameters of their authority under the

search warrant. Article III, Section 2 of the 1987

Constitution requires that a search warrant
should particularly describe the things to be
seized. The evident purpose and intent of the
requirement is to limit the things to be seized to
those, and only those, particularly described in
the search warrant, to leave the officers of the
law with no discretion regarding what articles
they should seize, to the end that unreasonable
searches and seizures may not be made and that
abuses may not be committed. Neither can the
admissibility of such seized items be justified
under the plain view doctrine, for the bricks of
marijuana in this case were found not
inadvertently or in plain view. Rather, they were
found after a meticulous search under the bed,
wrapped in a newspaper and inside a plastic
bag. Hence inadmissible because the said drugs
were contained in a plastic bag which bore no
indication of its contents.
DR. NEMESIO E. PRUDENTE, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. EXECUTIVE JUDGE ABELARDO M.
DAYRIT, RTC Manila, Branch 33 and PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
It appears that on 31 October 1987, P/Major
Alladin Dimagmaliw, filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manilapresided over by respondent
Judge Abelardo Dayritan application1 for the
issuance of a search warrant, docketed therein as
SEARCH WARRANT (Illegal Possession of Firearms,
etc.) against Nemesis E. Prudente.
In his application for search warrant, P/Major
Alladin Dimagmaliw alleged, among others,:That
he has been informed and has good and sufficient
reasons to believe that NEMESIO PRUDENTE, has
in his control or possession firearms, explosives
handgrenades and ammunition which are illegally
possessed or intended to be used as the means
of committing an offense which the said NEMESIO
PRUDENTE is keeping and concealing at the
following premises of the Polytechnic University
of the Philippines, to wit: a. Offices of the
Department of Military Science and Tactics at the
ground floor and other rooms at the ground floor;
b. Office of the President, Dr. Nemesio Prudente
at PUP, Second Floor and other rooms at the
second floor;
In support of the application for issuance of
search warrant, P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles, OIC of
the Intelligence Section of (ISAD) executed a
"Deposition of Witness" before respondent Judge.
On the same day, 31 October 1987, respondent
Judge issued Search Warrant No. 87-14, 3 the
pertinent portions of which read as follows:
On 1 November 1987, a Sunday and All
Saints Day, the search warrant was enforced by
some 200 WPD operatives.
In his affidavit, 4 dated 2 November 1987,
Ricardo Abando y Yusay, a member of the
searching team, alleged that he found in the

drawer of a cabinet inside the wash room of Dr.

Prudente's office a bulging brown envelope with
three (3) live fragmentation hand grenades
separately wrapped with old newspapers.
On 6 November 1987, petitioner moved to
quash the search warrant.
Allege: (1) the complainant's lone witness, Lt.
Florenio C. Angeles, had no personal knowledge
of the facts which formed the basis for the
issuance of the search warrant; (2) the
examination of the said witness was not in the
form of searching questions and answers; (3) the
search warrant was a general warrant, for the
reason that it did not particularly describe the
place to be searched and that it failed to charge
one specific offense; and (4) the search warrant
was issued in violation of Circular No. 19 of the
Supreme Court in that the complainant failed to
allege under oath that the issuance of the search
warrant on a Saturday was urgent. 5
Thereafter, on 9 March 1988, respondent
Judge issued an order, 9denying the petitioner's
motion and supplemental motion to quash.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration 10 was
likewise denied in the order 11 dated 20 April
1988.
Hence, the present recourse.
Held:
For a valid search warrant to issue, there
must be probable cause, which is 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.
The probable cause must be in connection
with one specific offense and the judge must,
before issuing the warrant, personally examine in
the form of searching questions and answers, in
writing and under oath, the complainant and any
witness he may produce, on facts personally
known to them and attach to the record their
sworn statements together with any affidavits
submitted. 14
In his application for search warrant, P/Major
Alladin Dimagmaliw stated that "he has been
informed" that Nemesio Prudente "has in his
control and possession" the firearms and
explosives described therein, and that he "has
verified the report and found it to be a fact." On
the other hand, in his supporting deposition, P/Lt.
Florenio C. Angeles declared that, as a result of
their continuous surveillance for several days,
they "gathered informations from verified
sources" that the holders of the said fire arms
and explosives are not licensed to possess them.
In other words, the applicant and his witness
had no personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances which became the basis for issuing
the questioned search warrant, but acquired

knowledge thereof only through information from

other sources or persons.
The true test of sufficiency of a deposition or
affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant
is whether it has been drawn in a manner that
perjury could be charged thereon and the affiant
be held liable for damage caused. The oath
required must refer to the truth of the facts within
the personal knowledge of the applicant for
search warrant, and/or his witnesses, not of the
facts merely reported by a person whom one
considers to be reliable.
Tested by the above standard, the allegations
of the witness, P/Lt. Angeles, in his deposition, do
not come up to the level of facts of his personal
knowledge so much so that he cannot be held
liable for perjury for such allegations in causing
the issuance of the questioned search warrant.
The oath required must refer to the truth of
the facts within the personal knowledge of the
petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose
thereof is to convince the committing magistrate,
not the individual making the affidavit and
seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the
existence of probable cause.
Moreover, a perusal of the deposition of P/Lt.
Florenio Angeles shows that it was too brief and
short. Respondent Judge did not examine him "in
the form of searching questions and answers."
BUt, the questions asked were leading as they
called for a simple "yes" or "no" answer. Thus it
did not satisfy the requirements for issuance of a
valid search warrant."
The rule is, that a description of a place to be
searched is sufficient if the officer with the
warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and
Identify the place intended . 22 In the case at bar,
the application for search warrant and the search
warrant itself described the place to be searched
as the premises of the Polytechnic University of
the Philippines, located at Anonas St., Sta. Mesa,
Sampaloc, Manila more particularly, the offices of
the Department of Military Science and Tactics at
the ground floor, and the Office of the President,
Dr. Nemesio Prudente, at PUP, Second Floor and
other rooms at the second floor. The designation
of the places to be searched sufficiently complied
with the constitutional injunction that a search
warrant must particularly describe the place to be
searched, even if there were several rooms at the
ground floor and second floor of the PUP.
In the present case, however, the application
for search warrant was captioned: "For Violation
of PD No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms,
etc.) While the said decree punishes several
offenses, the alleged violation in this case was,
qualified by the phrase "illegal possession of
firearms, etc." As explained by respondent Judge,
the term "etc." referred to ammunitions and
explosives. In other words, the search warrant

was issued for the specific offense of illegal

possession of firearms and explosive.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. MODESTO TEE a.k.a. ESTOY TEE,
accused-appellant.
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
Prosecution witness Danilo Abratique, a
Baguio-based taxi driver, and the appellant
Modesto Tee are well acquainted with each other.
Appellant asked Abratique to find him a place
for the storage of smuggled cigarettes.[10]
Abratique brought appellant to his friend, Albert
Ballesteros, who had a house for rent in
Bakakeng, Baguio City. Ballesteros agreed to rent
out his place to appellant. Shortly thereafter,
however, Ballesteros learned that the boxes
stored in his place were not blue seal cigarettes
but marijuana. Fearful of being involved,
Ballesteros informed Abratique. Both later
prevailed upon appellant to remove them from
the premises.[11]
Appellant then hired Abratiques taxi and
transported the boxes of cannabis from the
Ballesteros place to appellants residence at Km.
6, Dontogan, Green Valley, Sto. Tomas, Baguio
City.[12]
On June 30, 1998, appellant hired Abratique
to drive him to La Trinidad, Benguet on the
pretext of buying and transporting strawberries.
Upon reaching La Trinidad, however, appellant
directed Abratique to proceed to Sablan,
Benguet, where appellant proceeded to load
several sacks of marijuana in Abratiques taxi. He
then asked Abratique to find him a place where
he could store the contraband.[13]
Abratique
brought
appellant
to
his
grandmothers house at No. 27 Dr. Cario St., QM
Subdivision, Baguio City, which was being
managed by Abratiques aunt, Nazarea Abreau.
Nazarea agreed to rent a room to appellant.
Abratique was aware that they were transporting
marijuana as some of the articles in the sacks
became exposed in the process of loading.[15]
Eventually, Abratique and Nazarea were
bothered by the nature of the goods stored in the
rented room. She confided to her daughter, Alice
Abreau Fianza, about their predicament. As Alice
Fianzas brother-in-law, Edwin Fianza, was an NBI
agent, Alice and Abratique phoned him and
disclosed what had transpired.[16]
Edwin Fianza and other NBI operatives
conducted a stake out at No. 27, Dr. Cario St. As
the day wore on and appellant did not show up,
the NBI agents became apprehensive that the
whole operation could be jeopardized. They
sought the permission of Nazarea Abreau to enter
the room rented by appellant. She acceded and
allowed them entry. The NBI team then searched
the rented premises and found four (4) boxes and

thirteen (13) sacks of marijuana, totaling 336.93

kilograms.[18]
Later that evening, NBI Special Agent Darwin
Lising, with Abratique as his witness, applied for a
search warrant from RTC Judge Antonio Reyes at
his residence. Thereafter, the judge issued a
warrant directing the NBI to search appellants
residence at Km. 6, Dontogan, Green Valley,
Baguio City for marijuana.[20]
The NBI operatives, with some PNP NARCOM
personnel in tow, proceeded to appellants
residence where they served the warrant upon
appellant himself. The law enforcers found 26
boxes and a sack of dried marijuana[24] in the
water tank, garage, and storeroom of appellants
residence.[25] The total weight of the haul was
591.81 kilograms.[26] Appellant was arrested for
illegal possession of marijuana.
On July 20, 1998, appellant moved to quash
the search warrant on the ground that it was too
general and that the NBI had not complied with
the requirements for the issuance of a valid
search warrant. The pendency of said motion,
however, did not stop the filing of the appropriate
charges against appellant.
On August 7, 1998, the prosecution moved to
amend the foregoing charge sheet considering
that subject marijuana were seized in two (2)
different places
On September 4, 1998, the trial court denied
the motion to quash the search warrant and
ordered appellants arraignment.
When arraigned in Criminal Cases Nos.
15800-R and 15822-R, appellant refused to enter
a plea. The trial court entered a plea of not guilty
for him.
Trial on the merits then ensued.In Criminal
Case No. 15822-R, the trial court agreed with
appellant that the taking of the 336.93 kilograms
of marijuana was the result of an illegal search
and hence, inadmissible in evidence against
appellant. Appellant was accordingly acquitted of
the charge. However, the trial court found that
the prosecutions evidence was more than ample
to prove appellants guilt in Criminal Case No.
15800-R and as earlier stated, duly convicted him
of illegal possession of marijuana and sentenced
him to death.
Hence, this automatic review.
Held:
Appellant avers that the phrase an
undetermined amount of marijuana as used in
the search warrant fails to satisfy the requirement
of Article III, Section 2[29] of the Constitution that
the things to be seized must be particularly
described. Appellants contention, in our view, has
no leg to stand on. The constitutional
requirement of reasonable particularity of
description of the things to be seized is primarily
meant to enable the law enforcers serving the
warrant to: (1) readily identify the properties to

be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the

wrong items;[30] and (2) leave said peace
officers with no discretion regarding the articles
to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable
searches and seizures.[31] What the Constitution
seeks to avoid are search warrants of broad or
general
characterization
or
sweeping
descriptions, which will authorize police officers
to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and
confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or
articles relating to an offense.[32] However, it is
not required that technical precision of
description be required,[33] particularly, where
by the nature of the goods to be seized, their
description must be rather general, since the
requirement of a technical description would
mean that no warrant could issue.[34]
Appellant next assails the warrant for merely
stating that he should be searched, as he could
be guilty of violation of Republic Act No. 6425.
Appellant claims that this is a sweeping
statement as said statute lists a number of
offenses with respect to illegal drugs. Hence, he
contends, said warrant is a general warrant and is
thus unconstitutional.
We have carefully scrutinized Search Warrant
No. 415 (7-98),[41] and we find that it is
captioned For Violation of R.A. 6425, as amended.
Though the specific section of the Dangerous
Drugs Law is not pinpointed, there is no question
at all of the specific offense alleged to have been
committed as a basis for the finding of probable
cause.[44] Appellants averment is, therefore,
baseless. Search Warrant No. 415 (7-98) appears
clearly issued for one offense, namely, illegal
possession of marijuana.
Appellant next faults the Judge who issued
Search Warrant No. 415 (7-98) for his failure to
exhaustively examine the applicant and his
witness.
In this case, NBI Special Investigator Lisings
knowledge of the illicit drugs stored in appellants
house was indeed hearsay. But he had a witness,
Danilo Abratique, who had personal knowledge
about said drugs and their particular location.
Abratiques statements to the NBI and to Judge
Reyes contained credible and reliable details. As
the NBIs witness, Abratique was a person on
whose statements Judge Reyes could rely. His
detailed description of appellants activities with
respect to the seized drugs was substantial. In
relying on witness Abratique, Judge Reyes was
not depending on casual rumor circulating in the
underworld, but on personal knowledge Abratique
possessed.
Appellant argues that the address indicated
in the search warrant did not clearly indicate the
place to be searched. The OSG points out that the
address stated in the warrant is as specific as can
be. The NBI even submitted a detailed sketch of

the premises prepared by Abratique,

ensuring that there would be no mistake.

thus