Case Summary (G.R. No. 126859)
Factual background: search warrants, searches and items seized
Two search warrants (Nos. 54-95 and 55-95) issued by the RTC, Branch 125, Kalookan City, on March 31, 1995, named Apartment No. 2 at 154 Obiniana Compound as the place to be searched and described firearms, ammunitions and explosives to be seized. On April 1, 1995, police executed searches at Apartment No. 2 and also at Apartment No. 8 in the same compound. Apartment No. 2 yielded multiple firearms, magazines, live ammunitions, explosives and incendiary devices (detailed list in the record). Apartment No. 8 yielded one .45 caliber pistol. Receipts acknowledging the seized items were signed by SPO2 Melanio de la Cruz.
Criminal charges, detention and bail proceedings
Petitioners were charged in Criminal Cases Nos. C-48666-67 before the RTC, Branch 123, for violations of P.D. No. 1866 (illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives). They were arrested and detained. Petitioners filed a motion for bail (May 24, 1995); the RTC deferred resolution pending prosecution evidence. At the February 7, 1996 hearing the RTC admitted prosecution exhibits “for whatever purpose,” and on February 19, 1996 denied bail, applying Rule 114 as amended by SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94 (Section 7), which bars bail when the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong. Later Supreme Court action (resolution of November 24, 1998) applied RA 8294’s reduction of penalties under P.D. 1866 and concluded petitioners were entitled to bail as a matter of right prior to conviction, partially lifting the Supreme Court’s prior T.R.O. to permit the RTC to resolve the pending bail motion.
Issues presented to the Supreme Court
Petitioners’ Rule 65 petition to the Supreme Court, after dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the certiorari action, raised principally: (1) whether the items seized and offered by the prosecution were admissible, and (2) whether the accused had a right to bail. The bail issue was disposed of by the Court’s earlier resolution applying RA 8294 and Administrative Circular No. 12-94.
Threshold constitutional and procedural standards applied
The Court applied the 1987 Constitution’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures (Sec. 2) and the exclusionary rule (Sec. 3(2)), together with Rule 126 requisites for issuing and executing search warrants (probable cause, particular description of place and things to be seized; presence of occupants or two witnesses during search; receipt requirements). The Court also referenced prior jurisprudence on the scope of particularity required for items to be seized and on the illegality of searches beyond the place named in the warrant.
Legality of the search at Apartment No. 8 (outside warrant)
The Court found the search of Apartment No. 8 illegal because the search warrants specifically authorized searches of Apartment No. 2 only; there was no mention of Apartment No. 8. The Court cited the settled principle that a search warrant cannot be enlarged or its place description changed by the executing officers. Consequently, the .45 caliber pistol seized at Apartment No. 8 was declared inadmissible in evidence.
Legality of the search at Apartment No. 2 (within warrant)
The Court concluded the search of Apartment No. 2 was conducted pursuant to the warrants that specifically named that apartment. The presence of petitioners during the search was noted and the execution was found consistent with Section 7, Rule 126 (search in presence of lawful occupant). The Court therefore found the search at Apartment No. 2 valid and the items seized therefrom admissible, subject to trial adjudication of other factual claims.
Particularity requirement for description of things to be seized
Petitioners argued the warrants failed to describe the items to be seized with sufficient particularity. The Court held that where the things to be seized are of a nature that permits only a general description, the law requires specificity only “in so far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow.” The warrants’ descriptions were directly related to offenses proscribed by P.D. 1866 (illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives) and thus sufficiently particular. The Court reiterated that substantial similarity between described items and seized items suffices; absolute technical concordance is not required, lest warrants become impracticable.
Two-witness and receipt requirements (Section 10, Rule 126)
Petitioners contended the two-witness requirement of Section 10 was violated because only one witness signed the receipt. The Court clarified that the two-witness rule applies only when the lawful occupants are absent. Here, petitioners were present during the search of Apartment No. 2, and at least one petitioner admitted being an occupant; thus the two-witness requirement did not apply and no violation of Section 10 was found.
Custody of seized properties and other evidentiary/factual claims
Petitioners raised additional factual claims: that the seized items were not actually in their possession (challenging constructive vs. actual possession), that items were planted by police, and that seized materials were not turned over to the police evidence custodian as required by DOJ Circular No. 61. The Court treated these as questions of fact to be resolved at trial and declined to decide them on the certiorari petition, noting that constructive possession under P.D. 1866 may suffice where animus possidendi is established and that whether elements of P.D. 1866 are proven is a trial matter.
Waiver argument regarding failure to file motion to quash
The Court of Appeals had characterized petitioners as having waived attacks on the warrants by not filing a motion to quash. The Supreme Court, while recognizing waiver doctrines, nonetheless found the execution at Apartment No
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 126859)
Court, Citation, and Panel
- Decision by the Supreme Court, Second Division; G.R. No. 126859, September 04, 2001.
- Reported at 416 Phil. 759; 99 OG No. 4, 502 (January 27, 2003).
- Decision penned by Justice Quisumbing.
- Concurring: Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ.
Procedural Posture
- Petitioners brought a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Court of Appeals decision dated September 30, 1996, which had affirmed the orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 123, Kalookan City, dismissing petitioners’ certiorari.
- Petitioners were charged and prosecuted by the RTC, Branch 123, in Criminal Cases Nos. C-48666-67 for illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives under Presidential Decree No. 1866.
- Petitioners filed a motion for bail before the RTC on May 24, 1995; the RTC held resolution in abeyance pending prosecution evidence and later denied bail on February 19, 1996.
- This Supreme Court decision addresses primarily the validity of the searches and the admissibility of the seized items; the bail issue was separately resolved by the Court in a prior resolution dated November 24, 1998.
Relevant Dates, Judges and Warrants
- March 31, 1995: Judge Geronimo S. Mangay, presiding judge, RTC, Branch 125, Kalookan City, issued Search Warrants Nos. 54-95 and 55-95.
- April 1, 1995: Police executed searches at Apartment No. 2 and Apartment No. 8, both located at 154 Obiniana Compound, Deparo Road, Kalookan City.
Factual Summary — Searches and Seizures
- Apartment No. 2 (per inventory/receipt signed by SPO2 Melanio de la Cruz) produced a comprehensive list of firearms, ammunitions, explosives, detonating devices, blasting caps, TNT, timers, suspected explosive substances, and other paraphernalia; the source lists specific items found (e.g., two M-16 rifles, magazines, live M-16 ammunitions; a bar of demolition charge; a .45 caliber pistol with magazine and live ammunitions; a .22 caliber handgun with live ammunitions; fragmentation grenades; detonating cords with blasting caps; ammonium nitrate; TNT; timer alarm clock; and others).
- Apartment No. 8 yielded one (1) .45 caliber pistol at the time of the police operation.
- The seized firearms, ammunitions, explosives and incendiary devices were acknowledged in the receipt signed by SPO2 Melanio de la Cruz.
Charges and Custody
- Petitioners were arrested and detained following the searches.
- They were charged in Criminal Cases Nos. C-48666-67 for illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives, pursuant to P.D. No. 1866 (codifying laws on illegal/unlawful possession, manufacture, dealing in, acquisition or disposition of firearms, ammunitions or explosives).
- The RTC admitted prosecution exhibits “for whatever purpose they may be worth” after prosecution evidence was adduced at the bail hearing despite petitioners’ objections to admissibility.
Bail Proceedings — Separate Resolution by the Court
- RTC denied bail on February 19, 1996, citing that petitioners were charged with offenses punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum to reclusion perpetua under P.D. 1866 and invoking Rule 114 as amended by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-94 concerning denial of bail where evidence of guilt is strong.
- The Supreme Court, in a resolution dated November 24, 1998, ruled that by virtue of Republic Act No. 8294 the penalty under Sections 1 and 3 of P.D. 1866 was reduced; petitioners thus became entitled to bail as a matter of right prior to conviction pursuant to Section 4 of SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94.
- The Supreme Court partially lifted its Temporary Restraining Order (November 20, 1996) only insofar as petitioners’ pending motion for bail before the RTC, ordered the trial court to proceed with the bail hearing and resolve it with dispatch, and thereby GRANTED the petitioners’ motion for bail relief in that separate resolution.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court in the Instant Petition
- Whether the evidence offered by the prosecution (i.e., items seized in the searches) are admissible.
- Whether the accused have the right to bail (issue resolved by the Court in its November 24, 1998 resolution).
Petitioners’ Contentions Regarding the Searches and Evidence
- The search and seizure orders violated Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill of Rights and Section 3 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court for lack of particularity in describing the places and articles to be seized.
- The two-witness requirement under Section 10 of Rule 126 was violated because only one witness signed the receipt for seized properties, and that witness was not presented at trial.
- The presumption of regularity in implementing the search warrants was rebutted during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
- The seized items were not turned over to the police evidence custodian as required under Section 18 of Department of Justice Circular No. 61 (September 21, 1993).
- Petitioners disputed being in possession of the seized items and alleged possible planting of evidence.
State’s (OSG’s) Position
- The Office of the Solicitor General maintained that the search of Apartment No. 2 was legal and that the items seized therein are admissible.
- The OSG conceded that the search warrants specifically mentioned Apartment No. 2 (154 Obiniana Compound) and did not mention Apartment No. 8; therefore the search of Apartment No. 8 was not authorized by t