Case Digest (G.R. No. 144639)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Benny Go, G.R. No. 144639, September 12, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.The case arose from an information charging Benny Go with illegal possession of 204 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) seized from his residence. The prosecution alleged a prior "test buy" on April 28, 1999, and thereafter applied for and obtained Search Warrant No. 99-0038 from Branch 109, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City authorizing immediate search of Go’s home to seize “METAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu), weighing scale, other drug paraphernalias and proceeds of the above crime.” A raiding team executed the warrant on June 14, 1999 at around 6:00 p.m., gained entry after “side‑sweeping” Go’s parked Toyota Corolla, handcuffed Go’s son Jack Go, summoned two barangay kagawads to serve as witnesses, and conducted a search lasting until about 11:00 p.m.
The police inventory and subsequent police papers listed numerous items seized: among them a small knot‑tied transparent plastic bag of white crystalline substance (marked Exhibit A), a separate plastic bag with a yellowish substance (Exhibit B), voluminous documents, passports, bankbooks, checks, seals and stamp pads, and the Toyota Corolla. SPO1 Fernandez prepared a handwritten Inventory Receipt and an “Affidavit of Orderly Search” which Jack Go, the kagawads and Benny Go later signed; the seized items and some persons were brought to Camp Bagong Diwa. Exhibit A was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory and found to contain 204 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride; Exhibit B tested negative.
At trial the prosecution’s witnesses included the raiding officers and a forensic chemist; the defense called Benny Go, Jack Go and one barangay kagawad, who testified that (among other things) the police coerced signatures, handcuffed Jack, did not let Jack witness searches upstairs, and that the white crystalline bag recovered by police (Exhibit A) was not the item recovered from Jack’s room. The barangay kagawads testified inconsistently with the police as to whether Exhibit A was recovered and whether they had signed the same inventory pages the prosecution offered.
The RTC, Branch 41, Manila convicted Go on June 7, 2000 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P1,000,000.00. The trial court relied primarily on police testimony and the Inventory/Affidavit of Orderly Search, crediting the presumption that law enforcement regularly performed their duties. A motion for reconsideration was denied on July 24, 2000. Go timely appealed directly to the Supreme Court (direct appeal), raising, inter alia, the illegali...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was appellant’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt when the search and seizure of his residence allegedly violated constitutional and Rule 126 requirements?
- Should the items listed in appellant’s Motion for Return of Personal Documents, Vehicle and Paraphernalia that were not particularly described in Search Warrant No. 9...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)