G.R. No. L-29646 - Villegas vs. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho

The case originated from intelligence received by Task Force Roulette of the Aklan Police Provincial Office (APPO) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) that petitioners Barry Lanier and Perlita Lanier were engaged in selling illegal drugs in Boracay Island.
A test-buy operation was conducted at the petitioners’ residence in Barangay Balabag, Boracay where police operatives purchased P5,000.00 worth of shabu and P1,000.00 worth of marijuana.

Based on the test-buy and subsequent surveillance, the police secured a search warrant from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aklan.
On December 17, 2003, police operatives, accompanied by the Barangay Captain and members of the media, executed the search warrant at the petitioners’ residence.
During the search, officers recovered:

Three sachets of shabu (approximately 10.4 grams in total) found inside a jewelry box in the living room on the second floor;
One big pack containing dried marijuana leaves weighing approximately 950 grams;
Two gift packs containing nine bricks of marijuana weighing a total of 800 grams.

A Receipt for Property Seized was prepared by SPO1 Nathaniel A. Tan, which petitioners refused to sign.
Following the search and seizure, petitioners were placed under arrest.

On December 18, 2003, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Kalibo, Aklan, filed an Information charging the petitioners with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Petitioners subsequently filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation/Re-investigation (December 23, 2003) and later a Motion to Quash the Information (filed on January 9, 2004), questioning:

Counter-affidavits and supplementary evidence (including a Home Study Report and a drug-test report) were submitted by petitioners to support their claims.

On January 28, 2004, the RTC issued an Order denying the Motion to Quash while remanding the case to the provincial prosecutor for further investigation.
On March 8, 2004, the provincial prosecutor upheld the Information and directed the return of the records to the RTC.
Petitioners filed a petition for review before the Department of Justice (DOJ) on March 28, 2004, challenging the provincial prosecutor’s resolution.

On May 6, 2004, the Secretary of Justice, acting on the petition, directed the withdrawal of the Information based on his appraisal that the seized evidence might have been planted.
Consequently, the provincial prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw the Information before the RTC, which was granted on June 24, 2004.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking annulment of the DOJ Resolutions and the RTC Order that had directed the withdrawal of the Information.
On September 26, 2008, the Court of Appeals nullified and set aside the DOJ Resolutions and the RTC Order, reinstating the Information against the petitioners.
The appellate court maintained that there was sufficient probable cause to indict the petitioners, basing its decision on both the facts obtained during the undercover and search operations and on the consistency of the police testimonies.

The discrepancy in the recorded time of the search and the arrival of the weighing scale;
The alleged ability of officers to pre-determine the exact weight of the seized drugs; and
The overall credibility of the police testimonies alleging that the raid was conducted in a manner that compromised the legality of the search.

Whether the determination of probable cause by the prosecutorial authorities (specifically the Secretary of Justice) is immune from judicial interference, except in cases of grave abuse of discretion.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reinstating the Information after the DOJ had directed its withdrawal based on allegations of evidence planting and procedural irregularities.

Whether the petitioners’ claims regarding procedural lapses—including the alleged tardiness in filing the petition for review, substitution of a lost appeal, and failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration—are tenable and affect the validity of the contested decisions.

Whether the mechanics of the search at the petitioners’ residence (e.g., serving of the search warrant, involvement of the Barangay Captain, and the sequence of the raid and search teams) rendered the search illegal, thereby rendering the evidence inadmissible.

Whether the evidence, particularly the findings regarding the exact measurement of the seized drugs and the absence of marked money in court records, is sufficient to uphold a finding of probable cause.