People v. Francisco | G.R. No. 129035 | 22 August 2002 | Topic: Article III – Section 2 |
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Annabelle Francisco y David
RECIT READY SUMMARY:
On March 30, 1996, Annabelle Francisco, who was then nine months pregnant, was resting inside the second floor masters bedroom of their two- storey apartment at 120 M. Hizon Street, Caloocan City, when she heard a loud bang downstairs as if somebody forcibly opened the front door. Eight policemen suddenly entered her bedroom and conducted a search for about an hour Shabu, among other items were seized from the residence, based on a search warrant obtained by SPO2 Teneros in Manila RTC. She was later charged with violating the DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT.
The issue is W/N the search conducted by the police officers at Francisco’s residence was reasonable.
The Court ruled in the NEGATIVE.
Requisites for a valid search warrant:
(1) probable cause is present;
(2) such presence is determined personally by the judge;
(3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation;
(4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and
(5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.
The fifth requisite is lacking and nullifies the search warrant. In the present case, the place was wrongly described as No. 122, although it may have been located on the same street as No. 120. Even the description referred to that house located at No. 122 M. Hizon St., not at No. 120 M. Hizon St.
Applying the Exclusionary Rule, the evidence obtained is inadmissible. Therefore, Francisco is ACQUITTED.
FACTS:
Federico Verona and his live-in girlfriend, Annabelle Francisco, were placed under surveillance after the
police confirmed, through a test-buy operation, that they were engaged in selling shabu or
methamphetamine hydrochloride. SPO2 Teneros and SPO4 Alberto San Juan applied for a search warrant
before a Manila RTC to authorize them to search the premises at 122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City.
At 10:30 am, on March 30, 1996, Annabelle Francisco, who was then nine months pregnant, was resting
inside the second floor masters bedroom of their two- storey apartment at 120 M. Hizon Street, Caloocan
City, when she heard a loud bang downstairs as if somebody forcibly opened the front door. Eight policemen
suddenly entered her bedroom and conducted a search for about an hour. She inquired about their identities
but they refused to answer. It was only at the police station where she found out that the team of searchers
was led by SPO2 Teneros.
The ff. were seized:
230 grams of Shabu; Several plastics in different sizes; Aluminum foil; Monitoring device; Motorolla Phones; Pantakal (for
measuring weight of Shabu); 22,900 pesos
180,000 pesos, Fiat car, jewelry, keys, ATM card, bank books, car documents
She was charged with violating the DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT
ISSUES:
1. W/N the search conducted by the police officers at Francisco’s residence was reasonable? No.
2. W/N the evidence is admissible? No.
HELD:
1. For the validity of a search warrant, the Constitution requires that there be a particular description of the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. 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 and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or description known
to the locality that leads the officer unerringly to it satisfies the constitutional requirement
Requisites for a valid search warrant:
(1) probable cause is present;
(2) such presence is determined personally by the judge;
(3)
the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally
examined by the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation;
(4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and
(5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.
The warrants will always be construed strictly without, however, going the full length of requiring technical
accuracy. No presumptions of regularity are to be invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to
justify it.
People v. Veloso - even 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.
No. 122 M. Hizon St. was a concrete two-storey residential building with steel-barred windows and a terrace.
It was owned by a certain Mr. Joseph Ching. The house, however, bore no house number.
No. 120 M. Hizon St. was two houses away and Francisco rented the third unit in the address, which was
behind the first two units.
In the present case, the place was wrongly described as No. 122, although it may have been located on the
same street as No. 120. Even the description of the house by police asset Baradilla referred to that house
located at No. 122 M. Hizon St., not at No. 120 M. Hizon St.
2. Exclusionary Rule
“Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding.”
- Exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence was the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional
injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.
- Fruits of the poisonous tree
- Without this exclusionary rule, the constitutional right would be so ephemeral and so neatly severed
from its conceptual nexus with the freedom from all brutish means of coercing evidence.
- Court found disturbing the seizure of cellular phones, money and television/monitoring device items
that are not within the palest ambit of shabu paraphernalia, which were the only items authorized to
be seized.
- A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing
expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime.
DISPOSITION: ACQUITTAL and RELEASED from confinement, unless she is lawfully held in custody for another cause.
Comments
Post a Comment