Title
Dabon vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 208775
Decision Date
Jan 22, 2018
Police searched Dabon's residence for drugs but violated procedural rules by not allowing him or his family to witness the search. The Supreme Court ruled the evidence inadmissible, acquitting Dabon due to the unconstitutional search.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 208775)

Conduct of the Search and Seizure

On July 26, 2003, at approximately 7:30 a.m., CIDG officers, accompanied by barangay and SK officials, media, and a DOJ representative, executed the warrant at Dabon’s two-storey apartment in Tagbilaran City. They found Dabon and a companion, Eusubio Dumaluan. In the kitchen and bedroom, officers recovered drug paraphernalia and three sachets of suspected shabu weighing 0.80 gram, which were inventoried in the presence of identified witnesses. Subsequent forensic analysis confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

Criminal Charges and Trial Court Findings

Two informations charged Dabon with possession of shabu (Section 11) and possession of paraphernalia (Section 12) under R.A. No. 9165; a separate information charged Dumaluan with paraphernalia possession. The RTC upheld the search’s regularity, presumed proper officer performance, and convicted Dabon:
• Section 11 – Indeterminate sentence of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years imprisonment, ₱300,000 fine
• Section 12 – Indeterminate sentence of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years imprisonment, ₱25,000 fine

Court of Appeals Decision

Dabon appealed, arguing the inadmissibility of evidence due to defective search procedure. The CA affirmed, finding any procedural flaw did not undermine seizure locus and holding that rights to question validity were waived for failure to do so before arraignment.

Issue on Admissibility of Evidence

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution and Rule 126, Section 8, is admissible against Dabon.

Constitutional Provision on Searches and Seizures

Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that search warrants issue only upon judge-determined probable cause and particularly describe the premises and items to be seized. Article III, Section 3(2) prescribes the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in violation of these provisions.

Mandatory Two-Witness Rule (Rule 126, Section 8)

Rule 126, Section 8 requires that a search of a house, room, or premises be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant or a family member; if absent, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing locally must be present. This hierarchy and requirement are mandatory safeguards against arbitrary searches.

Violation of Witness Requirement and Exclusionary Rule

Testimony established that Dabon and his wife were present but not allowed to witness the bedroom search and only one external witness, Barangay Kagawad Angalot, stood in. The absence of a second qualified witness and exclusion of the occupants violated the two-witness mandate. Pursuant to People v. Go, Del Castillo, and Bulauitan, such non-compliance renders the search unreasonable and the evidence inadm

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.