G.R. No. 213875 - Diaz vs. People

On April 27, 2012, Police Officer 2 Pio P. Avila filed an application under oath before RTC Branch 32, San Pablo City, Laguna, alleging probable cause to believe that Merlina R. Diaz possessed methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in her residence in Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna, in violation of RA 9165.
RTC Judge Agripino Morga issued Search Warrant No. 97 (12), commanding search “at any time of the day or night” of the entire house and seizure of the contraband. An informant, Jericho S. Labrador, submitted two sketches: a floor plan of a studio‐type unit and a site sketch marking petitioner’s house among three buildings along Gitna Street.

Members of the San Pedro Police Station executed the warrant, recovered approximately nine grams of shabu, and arrested Diaz.
During custody, police learned that the complete address was No. 972, Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna, and that the “house” was divided into five separate dwelling units occupied by Diaz and her four siblings and their families.

On May 2, 2012, inquest proceedings were conducted, and an Information for violation of Section 11, RA 9165, was filed as Criminal Case No. 12-8358-SPL before RTC Branch 93, San Pedro, Laguna.
On May 22, 2012, Diaz filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant No. 97 (12) before RTC Branch 32, arguing the warrant was general for failing to specify house number and unit. The motion was forwarded to Branch 93.
On July 16, 2013, RTC Branch 93 denied the Motion to Quash for lack of merit, finding the warrant’s description sufficient. On September 20, 2013, it denied Diaz’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Diaz filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). On May 12, 2014, the CA dismissed the petition, and on August 11, 2014, it denied reconsideration.
Diaz then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, assailing the validity of the warrant and the denial of her motions below.

Whether Search Warrant No. 97 (12) is a general warrant for failing to describe with particularity the place to be searched.

Whether the denial of petitioner’s Motion to Quash and Motion for Reconsideration by RTC Branch 93 constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari.