PEOPLE

VS
SALANGUIT

FACTS:

- Sr. Insp. Aguilar obtained a warrant from the trial court to conduct a search at the
defendant’s house
- A group of 10 policemen, along with a civilian informer, went to the residence of the
appellant
- The police operatives knocked on the appellant’s door but nobody answered. Upon
hearing people inside the house panicking, they forcibly opened the door and entered
- After showing the warrant, they searched the entire house and found
methamphetamine hydrochloride contained in transparent plastic bags, and two
bricks of marijuana leaves wrapped in a newsprint
- A receipt of the items seized were prepared the appellant refused to sign it
- Appellant was then brought to the police station
- Appellant stated a different version of the story
- He recalled that on the night of the incident, he was about to leave his house when he
heard a commotion on the roof and at the gate of their house. About 20 men in
civilian attire, carrying long firemarms, climbed over the gate and descended through
an opening in the roof
- A search warrant was presented to him but he was not able to read it because as he
was fumbling for his glasses, the paper was withdrawn
- He was made to stay in one place while the house is being searched and thereafter,
a licensed firearm, money, jewelry, and canned goods were seized
- The trial court rendered judgment against appellant
- Hence, the appeal

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the shabu allegedly recovered from his residence is admissible as
evidence against him on the ground that the warrant used in obtaining it was invalid;
2. Whether or not the marijuana allegedly seized is admissible in evidence pursuant to
the plain view doctrine

HELD:

1. The fact that there was no probable cause to support the application for the
seizure of drug paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion that the search
warrant is void

Rule 126, 4 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that a search warrant
shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense 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 things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
In issuing a search warrant, judges must comply strictly with the requirements of the
Constitution and the Rules of Criminal Procedure. No presumption of regularity can be
invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to justify its issuance. Nothing can
justify the issuance of the search warrant unless all the legal requisites are fulfilled.
The fact that there was no probable cause to support the application for the seizure of
drug paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion that the search warrant is void. This fact
would be material only if drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police. The fact is that
none was taken by virtue of the search warrant issued. If at all, therefore, the search warrant
is void only insofar as it authorized the seizure of drug paraphernalia, but it is valid as to the
seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride as to which evidence was presented showing
probable cause as to its existence.

Accordingly, we hold that the first part of the search warrant, authorizing the search of
accused-appellant’s house for an undetermined quantity of shabu, is valid, even though the
second part, with respect to the search for drug paraphernalia, is not.

Only one warrant was necessary

to cover the violations under the
various provisions of the said law
It will suffice to quote what this Court said in a similar case to dispose of this contention:

While it is true that the caption of the search warrant states that it is in connection with
Violation of R.A. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, it is clearly
recited in the text thereof that There is probable cause to believe that Adolfo Olaes alias
Debie and alias Baby of No. 628 Comia St., Filtration, Sta. Rita, Olongapo City, has in their
session and control and custody of marijuana dried stalks/leaves/seeds/cigarettes and other
regulated/prohibited and exempt narcotics preparations which is the subject of the offense
stated above. Although the specific section of the Dangerous Drugs Act 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. The search warrant also satisfies the requirement in the Bill
of Rights of the particularity of the description to be made of the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.

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 the search warrant contained
several documents which identified
the premises to be searched
The rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the
warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended to be
searched.[33] For example, a search warrant authorized a search of Apartment Number 3 of a
building at 83 Pleasant Street, Malborough, Massachusetts. As it turned out, there were five
apartments in the basement and six apartments on both the ground and top floors and that
there was an Apartment Number 3 on each floor. However, the description was made
determinate by a reference to the affidavit supporting the warrant that the apartment was
occupied by the accused Morris Ferrante of 83 Pleasant Street, Malboro Mass. In this case,
the location of accused-appellants house being indicated by the evidence on record, there
can be no doubt that the warrant described the place to be searched with sufficient
particularity.
In sum, we hold that with respect to the seizure of shabu from accused-appellants
residence, Search Warrant No. 160 was properly issued, such warrant being founded on
probable cause personally determined by the judge under oath or affirmation of the deposing
witness and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

2. The marijuana is inadmissible in evidence against accused-appellant but the

confiscation of the drug must be upheld

Under the plain view doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has the
right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in
evidence. For this doctrine to apply, there must be: (a) prior justification; (b) inadvertent
discovery of the evidence; and (c) immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before the
police. The question is whether these requisites were complied with by the authorities in
seizing the marijuana in this case.
 Because the location of the shabu was indicated in the warrant and thus known to the
police operatives, it is reasonable to assume that the police found the packets of
the shabu first. Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed, the plain
view doctrine can no longer provide any basis for admitting the other items subsequently
found. As has been explained:

What the plain view cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a
prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece
of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior
justification whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful
arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed
against the accused and permits the warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the
original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they
have evidence before them; the plain view doctrine may not be used to extend a general
exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges.

The marijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint. There was no apparent illegality to justify
their seizure.

No presumption of regularity may be invoked by an officer in aid of the process when he

undertakes to justify an encroachment of rights secured by the Constitution. [41] In this case,
the marijuana allegedly found in the possession of accused-appellant was in the form of two
bricks wrapped in newsprint. Not being in a transparent container, the contents wrapped in
newsprint could not have been readily discernible as marijuana. Nor was there mention of the
time or manner these items were discovered. Accordingly, for failure of the prosecution to
prove that the seizure of the marijuana without a warrant was conducted in accordance with
the plain view doctrine, we hold that the marijuana is inadmissible in evidence against
accused-appellant. However, the confiscation of the drug must be upheld.