Case Digest (G.R. No. 185128)
Facts:
Ruben del Castillo @ Boy Castillo, G.R. No. 185128 [Formerly UDK No. 13980], January 30, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Ruben del Castillo was charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Cebu, in Criminal Case No. CBU-46291 with violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 for allegedly possessing four small heat-sealed plastic packs of shabu (total weight 0.31 gram) on September 13, 1997. The RTC found him guilty and imposed imprisonment (six months and one day to four years and two months) and ordered confiscation and destruction of the seized items.The prosecution’s case rested on a police operation that began with surveillance and a test-buy, followed by the securing of Search Warrant No. 570-9-1197-24 from the RTC. At about 3:00 p.m., police implementing the warrant cordoned petitioner’s two-storey residence. According to police testimony, petitioner fled toward a small adjacent structure described as a nipa hut/electrical shop. The police, unfamiliar with entrances, returned and requested barangay tanods; two tanods were brought. In the presence of one tanod (Nelson/Nilo Gonzalado), petitioner’s sister Dolly, and police officers, the tanod opened a folded paper in the nipa hut and discovered four plastic packs later confirmed by the PNP Crime Laboratory to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Petitioner pleaded not guilty. At trial the prosecution presented officers SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon, PO2 Milo Arriola, and forensic analyst Police Inspector Mutchit Salinas. The defense presented petitioner and three others who testified that petitioner was at work that afternoon and that the nipa hut belonged to petitioner’s brother and was used as family storage; petitioner denied owning or using the nipa hut as his shop. The RTC convicted; the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 27819 affirmed the conviction.
Petitioner sought relief in the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 after his motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied. He raised: (1) invalidity of the search warrant (lack of probable cause and infirmities in its issuance); (2) inadmissibility of the four packs because they were seized in a place not covered by...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Search Warrant No. 570-9-1197-24 validly issued (i.e., was there probable cause and proper judicial determination)?
- Are the four plastic packs of shabu admissible in evidence given that they were seized in a nipa hut not specifically described in the warrant and were discovered by a barangay tanod?
- Did the prosecution prove the element of possession (actual or constructive) of the sei...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)