Case Summary (G.R. No. 213875)
Key Dates
- April 27, 2012: Search Warrant No. 97(12) issued
- May 2, 2012: Inquest proceedings and Information filed (Criminal Case No. 12-8358-SPL)
- May 22, 2012: Motion to quash Search Warrant filed by Diaz
- July 16, 2013: RTC Order denying motion to quash
- September 20, 2013: RTC Order denying motion for reconsideration
- May 12, 2014: Court of Appeals Decision dismissing petition for certiorari
- August 11, 2014: CA Resolution denying motion for reconsideration
- July 15, 2020: Supreme Court Decision
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2: Requirements for search warrants (probable cause, personal determination by judge, oath or affirmation, particular description of place and items)
- Rule 126, Section 4 of the Rules of Court: Requisites for issuing search warrants
Factual Background
PO2 Avila filed an application under oath alleging that Diaz possessed methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) in her residence at Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna. Labrador provided two sketches: a floor plan of a studio-type unit and a compound sketch marking Diaz’s house among three buildings. Pursuant to Search Warrant No. 97(12), police officers searched the premises and seized approximately nine grams of shabu, arresting Diaz on the spot. It was later discovered that the address (No. 972) comprised a single structure divided into five self-contained units, each occupied by Diaz and her four siblings.
Procedural History
- Diaz filed a Motion to Quash the search warrant, arguing it was a general warrant that failed to specify her unit among the five.
- The RTC (Branch 32) forwarded the motion to RTC Branch 93, which denied both the motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration.
- Diaz sought certiorari relief from the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration.
- A Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court.
Issue
Whether Search Warrant No. 97(12) constituted a general warrant for lacking sufficient particularity in describing the place to be searched.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s Decision and Resolution.
Reasoning
- Constitutional and Rule 126 standards require particular description of place to be searched.
- A description is sufficient if officers “with reasonable effort” can ascertain and identify the intended place, distinguishing it from others.
- The search warrant described the place as “the house at Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna,” which uniquely identified Diaz’s dwelling among neighboring structures. Labrador’s sketches and PO2 Avila’s testimony further guided the search team.
- Cases invalidating warrants for compounds or multi-structure premises (Estrada; Asuncion) are distinguishable, as those permits allowed “unbridled discretion” to search multiple buildings. Here, only one singular structure was described.
- The internal division into
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 213875)
Factual Antecedents
- On April 27, 2012, PO2 Pio P. Avila executed an oath-sworn application before RTC Judge Agripino Morga for Search Warrant No. 97 (12), alleging probable cause for violation of RA 9165.
- The warrant described “Merly Diaz @ Merly Palayok” as having possession of undetermined shabu hidden in her house at Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna.
- Informant Jericho S. Labrador provided two sketches: a floor plan of a studio‐type apartment and a street layout marking petitioner’s house among three buildings.
Execution of the Search Warrant
- San Pedro Police Station officers served the warrant at the described location, identified the target structure, and seized about nine grams of shabu.
- Petitioner was arrested on site for violation of Section 11, RA 9165.
- Officers learned petitioner’s complete address (No. 972, Gitna) and discovered her house was partitioned into five separate units occupied by her and four siblings.
Inquest and Information
- On May 2, 2012, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Clarence R. Gaite conducted inquest proceedings.
- The same day, an Information for violation of Section 11, RA 9165 was filed before RTC, Branch 93, docketed as Criminal Case No. 12-8358-SPL.
Motion to Quash and RTC Resolution
- Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant on May 22, 2012, arguing the warrant was a general warrant lacking particularity (house number absent; failure to distinguish petitioner’s unit from other units).
- The motion was forwarded to RTC Branch 93.
- On July 16, 2013, RTC Branch 93 denied the Motion to Quash for lack of merit, finding the warrant description sufficient.
- A Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied on September 20, 2013.