People vs.

Estrada
Topic: Search and Seizure
People vs. Estrada
296 SCRA 383 (1998)

FACTS: The crime alleged is a violation of Art. 41 (k) in relation to Art. 41 of
RA 7394 (Consumer Act), i.e., selling drugs without a license. Pursuant to a
tip received by BFAD that the accused Aiden Lanuza was selling drugs
without a license, BFAD sought the assistance of NBI. An agent of NBI
conducted surveillance and did a test buy on Lanuza. Thereafter, a search
warrant was applied for and granted by Judge Estrada. After the warrant
was executed, the accused Lanuza assailed the validity of the warrant. The
said judge granted Lanuzas motion to quash stating that there were "grave
defects in the search warrant issued.

ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant was valid.

HELD: No, the search warrant was not valid.

Regarding the different names in the warrant, it was a negligible defect since
it was established that it was a typographical error.

However, there are 2 serious grounds to quash the search warrant:

1. There was no probable cause;
The NBI agent failed to present the best evidence (a certification from DOH)
that could be obtained to establish that the accused was selling without
license. Without such, it was mere allegation that the accused had no
license.

2. The placed to be searched had not been described with sufficient
particularity;
The warrant stated that the things to be seized were in the residence of the
accused, however, the things were found in a warehouse in the same
compound. Within the same compound, there are residences of other
people, workshops, offices, factories, and warehouses.