G.R. No. 147607 - People vs. Mamaril

On January 25, 1999, SPO2 Chito S. Esmenda applied for Search Warrant No. 99-51 before RTC Branch 39, Lingayen, Pangasinan, to search the residence of Benhur Mamaril for marijuana.
The warrant was issued by Executive Judge Eugenio G. Ramos, authorizing search of the family home at Ramos Street, Lingayen.

On February 1, 1999 at about 2:30 p.m., SPO3 Alfredo Rico, SPO4 Faustino Ferrer Jr., and other police officers arrived at the residence, saw appellant’s mother, and located appellant upstairs. Appellant attempted to flee but was stopped and shown the warrant.
The search was witnessed by Barangay Kagawad Leonardo Ramos and Barangay Tanod Valentino Quintos. Officers photographed and inventoried the seized items; appellant and barangay officials signed the certification of search.

Confiscated items included fifty-five sachets of crushed marijuana leaves in a buri bag, three sachets in an eyeglass case, twenty-two sachets under a pillow, and two bricks of marijuana fruiting tops in a closet.
On February 2, 1999, specimens were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where Forensic Chemist Ma. Theresa Ann Bugayong Cid found them positive for marijuana. Appellant’s urine sample tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

At pre-trial, the parties admitted facts on the search and laboratory reports. Appellant pleaded not guilty and filed a motion to exclude evidence, alleging the search warrant was illegally issued and implemented; the trial court denied the motion.
Appellant testified he resided elsewhere, was handcuffed on the balcony, saw seized items for the first time, and claimed they were planted. Branch Clerk of Court Enrico Castillo testified that no written transcript of the judge’s searching questions and answers existed.
On January 23, 2001, RTC Branch 39 convicted appellant of possession of marijuana under Section 8, RA 6425, as amended, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a ₱500,000 fine, with credit for preventive detention.

Whether Search Warrant No. 99-51 was validly issued, given the absence of written searching questions and answers under oath.
Whether the inventory and certification of seized items, signed by appellant without counsel, were admissible.
Whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of properly obtained evidence.