Case Summary (G.R. No. 208775)
Facts Concerning Surveillance, Warrant, and Execution
PNP–CIDG operatives conducted surveillance and test-buys that led to the issuance of Search Warrant No. 15 for petitioner’s residence for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. On July 26, 2003, CIDG officers executed the warrant at a two‑storey apartment unit where Dabon resided. The operatives asked the named community and official witnesses to attend. During the search the officers located Dumaluan in the living room and Dabon in a bedroom. Police handed Dabon a copy of the search warrant and proceeded to search the kitchen, living area and bedroom.
Items Seized, Inventory, and Laboratory Examination
Officers recovered alleged drug paraphernalia in the kitchen and living room; detection and searches of the bedroom uncovered three plastic sachets allegedly containing shabu and assorted paraphernalia hidden within clothes in a drawer. SPO1 Triste inventoried the seized items and placed them in evidence bags in the presence of certain witnesses. A PNP forensic chemical officer (P/Insp. David Tan) performed chemical and confirmatory tests on the seized items, yielding results positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Criminal informations were thereafter filed charging Dabon with violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165; an information for Section 12 was also filed against Dumaluan.
Defense Assertions Regarding Manner of Search
Dabon’s defense asserted that he and other household members were not permitted to witness the search; they claimed they were ordered to sit in the living room while other household members were allegedly locked in another room. Dabon contended that he was surprised and awakened by officers who entered the bedroom, and he challenged the admissibility of the seized items on the ground that the search did not comply with statutory safeguards.
RTC Disposition and Sentencing
The RTC found the search valid, upheld the presumption of regularity in police performance, and convicted Dabon beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 11 and 12 of R.A. No. 9165. The court imposed the applicable indeterminate sentences and fines, ordered turnover of the narcotics and paraphernalia to the PDEA for disposition/destruction, and returned the cellphone and cash to the accused upon motion. The RTC denied Dabon’s motion for reconsideration.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA reasoned, inter alia, that Dabon had waived his right to question his arrest by failing to raise the issue before arraignment, and in any event that alleged procedural defects did not negate the fact that drugs and paraphernalia were seized at Dabon’s residence. The CA denied reconsideration and the matter was brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 45.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the controlling issue as whether the evidence obtained against Dabon was admissible given the manner of the search and the asserted noncompliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards.
Constitutional and Procedural Legal Framework
The Supreme Court applied the 1987 Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, quoting the constitutional provision protecting persons, houses, papers, and effects and requiring that warrants issue only upon probable cause and that they particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The Court further invoked Rule 126 Section 8 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that searches of a house, room, or premises be made in the presence of the lawful occupant or any member of his family, or, in their absence, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. The exclusionary rule (that evidence obtained in violation of constitutional guarantees is inadmissible) was applied consistent with the constitutional and Rule-based protections.
Analysis of Compliance with the Two‑Witness Requirement
The Court examined testimonial evidence, specifically the testimony of PO2 Datoy and the confirmation by Brgy. Kagawad Angalot, which established that when the bedroom was searched Dabon and his wife were outside the room (in the sala and comfort room, respectively) and were not permitted to witness the search. Testimony showed that only Brgy. Kagawad Angalot was present during the bedroom search; the claimed presence of SK Chairman Angalot was refuted by the cited testimonies. Given the hierarchy established by Section 8, Rule 126, the lawful occupants were present and yet were not allowed to witness the search, and the two‑witness alternative was not satisfied. The Court relied on prior precedents emphasizing the mandatory nature of this requirement and the consequence that noncompliance renders evidence inadmissible.
Application of the Exclusionary Rule and Treatment of Procedural Waiver Arguments
The Court applied the exclusionary rule, holding that failure to comply with the safeguards of Section 8 made the search unreasonable and the seized items inadmissible for any purpose. The Court considered and rejected arguments that Dabon had waived his right to object by failing to file a timely motion to suppress. Citing prior decisions, the Court explained that procedural rules cannot diminish constitutional rights, and that waiver of constitutional protections must be clear, knowing, and intelligent. The Court noted that Dabon had raised the objection in his omnibus motion for reconsideration in the trial court and therefore found that the lack of proce
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 208775)
Case Reference and Procedural Posture
- Reporter citation and court: 824 Phil. 108, First Division; G.R. No. 208775; Decision dated January 22, 2018; penned by Justice Tijam.
- Nature of petition: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Jorge Dabon (Dabon).
- Question presented on appeal: Whether the evidence obtained against Dabon is admissible.
- Prior proceedings: Conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, Tagbilaran City, in Criminal Case Nos. 11930, 11931 and 11932 (Omnibus Decision dated July 10, 2008; Omnibus Order dated February 1, 2010); appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 01414, which issued a Decision dated July 27, 2012 and Resolution dated July 8, 2013 affirming the RTC decision; petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Parties
- Petitioner/accused: Jorge Dabon, a.k.a. George Debone @ George.
- Respondent: The People of the Philippines.
- Other persons involved (as witnesses or participants during search): Barangay Kagawad Ariel Angalot (Brgy. Kagawad Angalot), City Councilor Jose Angalot (Councilor Angalot), Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman Marianne Angalot (SK Chairman Angalot), media representative Charles Responte (Responte), Department of Justice representative Zacarias Castro (Castro).
- Other persons alleged present in premises: Eusubio Dumaluan (Dumaluan).
Statutory and Constitutional Framework
- Primary statute invoked in the informations: Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — offenses under Sections 11 and 12, Article II.
- Constitutional protection cited: Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution — right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures; warrant issuance only upon probable cause determined personally by judge, with particular description of place and persons or things to be seized.
- Rules of procedure cited: Rule 126, Section 8 (search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses) and Section 14 (motion to quash/suppress to be filed and acted upon by the court where action instituted) referenced in discussion.
- Exclusionary rule invoked: Any evidence obtained in violation of constitutional safeguards is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding (cited as Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution in the source material).
Factual Background (As Found in the Record)
- Intelligence and pre-search operations:
- Law enforcement agents (PNP-CIDG operatives in Bohol) conducted surveillance and test-buy operations establishing that Dabon was engaged in illegal drug activity.
- Search Warrant No. 15 was issued authorizing search of Dabon’s residence for violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
- Date, time, and place of operation:
- On July 26, 2003, police operatives proceeded to an apartment unit at Boal District, Tagbilaran City where Dabon resided.
- The CIDG operatives reached the two-storey apartment at about 7:30 a.m.
- Persons invited to witness the search:
- CIDG operatives requested Brgy. Kagawad Angalot, Councilor Angalot, SK Chairman Angalot, media representative Responte and DOJ representative Castro to witness the search.
- Entry and layout:
- The group entered the house; CIDG together with Brgy. Kagawad Angalot and SK Chairman Angalot went to the second floor where Dabon and his family resided.
- The second floor had two bedrooms, a kitchen and a living room.
- Dumaluan was found in the living room; Dabon was inside one of the bedrooms.
- Presentation of warrant and search conduct:
- P/Insp. Mallari handed a copy of the search warrant to Dabon prior to the search.
- The CIDG operatives searched the kitchen; PO2 Datoy and PO2 Enterina found drug paraphernalia in the presence of Brgy. Kagawad Angalot.
- The police frisked Dumaluan and recovered from his pocket: a coin purse, a lighter, a metal clip, three empty decks of suspected shabu, two pieces of blade, and crumpled tin foil.
- In one bedroom, PO2 Datoy and PO2 Enterina, in the presence of Brgy. Kagawad Angalot, found three plastic sachets containing suspected shabu hidden in folded clothes inside a drawer, and recovered multiple items of drug paraphernalia (empty cellophane wrapper, rolled tinfoil with suspected shabu residue, twisted tissues, plastic straw refiller, bamboo clips, improvised metal clip, blade).
- Inventory and custody of seized items:
- The three plastic sachets and paraphernalia found in the bedroom and those recovered from Dumaluan were turned over to SPO1 Triste, who inventoried and placed them in evidence bags in the presence of Councilor Angalot, Brgy. Kagawad Angalot, SK Chairman Angalot, Responte and Castro.
- On July 28, 2003, PO2 Diola received from PO2 Imperina a letter signed by P/Insp. Mallari requesting chemical examination on the seized items; items were turned over to P/Insp. David Tan, Forensic Chemical Officer.
- Chemical examination and confirmatory test by P/Insp. Tan yielded positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
- Criminal informations filed:
- Criminal Case No. 11931 (Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165): Alleged possession of three packets of shabu powder totally weighing 0.80 gram and one strip of aluminum foil containing traces of shabu.
- Criminal Case No. 11932 (Section 12, Article II, R.A. No. 9165): Alleged possession of multiple items of drug paraphernalia (detailed list: plastic containers with empty decks and cellophane wrappers, improvised tooters, tissues, cut-rolled tin foils, plastic straw refiller, bamboo clips, improvised metal clip, blade, cellophane pack, one unit cellphone (Motorola) with charger, and cash proceeds amounting to Php 1,900.00).
- A separate information for violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was filed against Dumaluan.
- Defense account:
- Dabon argued he was awakened by alleged CIDG members who entered his room pointing guns and announcing a raid.
- Dabon and Dumaluan claimed they were not allowed to witness the search and were ordered to stay and sit in the living room while other household members were locked in the room of their house helper.
Trial Court Ruling (RTC)
- Omnibus Decision dated July 10, 2008:
- RTC ruled the search at Dabon’s residence was valid.
- RTC found Dabon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
- RTC invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of police officers’ duties in the absence of proved ill motive.
- Sentences imposed (as stated in the RTC Omnibus Decision):
- Criminal Case No. 11931 (Violation of Section 11, Article II): Indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years, and a fine of Php 300,000.00, with accessory penalties and costs.
- Criminal Cases Nos. 11930 and 11932 (Violation of Section 12, Article II): Each of Dabon and Dumaluan sentenced to indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years, and a fine of Php 25,000.00, with accessory penalties and costs.
- Order on physical evidence:
- In compliance with R.A. No. 9165, the RTC ordered the three sachets of shabu (0