Sample Case Synthesis

Facts:
On or about 10:00 am of May 14, 2013, SPO3 Jack Macasayon
received a confidential information that petitioner was engaged in selling
shabu. SPO3 Jack Macasayon immediately applied for the issuance of a
warrant to search the person and residence of petitioner Daniel R. Guzman
alias Amang of No. 163, M. Naval Street, Kaunlaran Village, Navotas City.

The next morning, May 15, 2013, they went to the petitioner’s
residence to serve the search warrant.

Upon arrival, somebody shouted “raid” which prompted them to

immediately disembark from the car they were riding and proceeded to the
house of Amang. They met petitioner’s wife and informed her that they will
implement the search warrant. But before they can search the area, PO3
Costares claimed that he saw the petitioner run towards a computer shop,
petitioner’s family business.

They closely guarded the premises and with the presence of

petitioner’s wife Maricel Guzman, SPO3 Macasayon and his group searched
the house and the computer shop located in front of the house. They found
nothing on the house so they moved and search the computer shop where
they were able to confiscate several articles including 5 packs containing a
white crystalline substance. Consequently, the confiscated items were sent to
PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination and results positive for
the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable of the
charge against him in the information. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court.

Hence, he filed the instant petition alleging that the Appellate Court
erred in affirming the RTC’s decision.

Issue:
1) Whether or not there was probable cause for the issuance of a search
and seizure warrant against the petitioner?
2) Whether or not the search was valid?

Held:

1) No, there was no prior verification presence of shabu. The authorities

acted upon their belief that the information given was true. The
probable cause for a valid search warrant has been defined as such
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought
 to be searched. This probable cause must be shown to be within the
personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may
produce and not based on mere hearsay.

2) No, the search was not valid. The confiscated items having been
found in a place other than one described in the search warrant, can be
considered as fruits of invalid warrantless search, the presentation of
which as an evidence is a violation of petitioner’s constitutional
guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure.

Synthesis

In Castillo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 185128, January

30, 2012, the court ruled that the search was invalid. Authorities searched a
nipa hut which was not included in the secured search warrant. According to
the court, the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized in order for it to be valid.

In Nala vs. Barroso, G.R. No. 153087, August 7, 2003 the probable
cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the
complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere
hearsay. Probable cause must be shown by the best evidence that could be
obtained under the circumstances.

In PLDT vs. Razon Alvarez, G.R. No. 179408, Macrh 5, 2014, the
Court reiterated that probable cause requires the probable existence of an
offense. It further enumerated the requisites for the issuance of a search
warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be
determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing
and under oath or affirmation, the complaint and the witnesses he or she may
produce; (4) the applicants 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.

In Laud vs. People, G.R. No. 199032, November 19, 2014, the Court
ruled that the requirements for the issuance of the search warrant were
complied. The judge found probable cause on the testimony of the witness,
stating that Avasola personally witnessed the commission of the crime and
in fact part of the group.

In People vs. Molina, G.R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001, search
and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained
therefrom maybe admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident
to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving vehicles; (3) search in violation of
custom laws; (4) search of evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused
himself waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures; and (6)
stop and frisk situations (Terry Search).
From the above cases, the Court has laid down requirements for a
valid search. First, it must be a valid search warrant. Probable cause must
exist. It must be determined personally by the judge and as well as examined
it, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complaint and the witnesses
he or she may produce. The witnesses must testify based on the facts
personally known to them. Lastly, it must specifically describe the place to
be searched and the things to be seized (PLDT case).

Moreover, the probable cause must be shown to be within the personal

knowledge of the witness not based on mere hearsay (Nala case).
Testimonies claiming that a certain person witness the crime can be a ground
for a probable cause to issue a search warrant (Laud case).

A valid search warrant must particularly describe the place to be

searched and the persons or things to be seized in order for it to be valid.
Absence of such description will render the search invalid (Castillo Case).

However, jurisprudence has also laid down circumstances where

warrantless search may be valid:

a. search incident to a lawful arrest;

b. search of a moving vehicles;
c. search in violation of custom laws;
d. search of evidence in plain view;
e. when the accused himself waived his right against unreasonable
searches and seizures; and
f. stop and frisk situations (Terry Search).