Title
Mendoza y Bucad vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 248350
Decision Date
Dec 5, 2022
Police raided a residence under an invalid search warrant, seized drugs and firearms, and arrested Mendoza. SC acquitted him due to warrant invalidity and chain of custody violations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 212971)

Key Dates

Search warrant issued: 13 April 2016.
Search and arrest: 15 April 2016 (around 10:30 p.m.).
RTC decision convicting petitioner: 5 July 2017.
Court of Appeals decision affirming conviction: 11 February 2019; denial of motion for reconsideration: 11 July 2019.
Supreme Court decision: 5 December 2022.

Applicable Law and Rules

Constitutional provision: Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution (right against unreasonable searches and seizures; warrants only upon probable cause and particularly describing the place and persons/things to be seized).
Rules: Rule 126, Section 4 (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure) — the one-specific-offense rule for search warrants.
Statutes: Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), specifically Sections 11 and 12 (possession of dangerous drugs; possession of drug paraphernalia) and Section 21 (custody and disposition of seized items) as amended; Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act).

Factual Summary

Police executed Search Warrant SW-16-288-MN issued against Jay (Joseph) Eugene Tan and forcibly entered the house at No. 5379 Curie Street. Inside a ground-floor room they found petitioner seated on the floor holding a pen gun with, in front of him, one small transparent sachet containing shabu and two improvised glass pipes. Officers also located a vault containing firearms, ammunition, a digital scale, additional drug items and documents bearing the name Joseph Eugene Tan. An inventory was conducted by PO3 Marcelo in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Villa and photographs were taken. Laboratory testing by PSI Sahagun returned positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Procedural History

Following inquest, petitioner was indicted for violations of RA 9165 Sections 11 and 12 and RA 10591. At trial, the prosecution presented several police witnesses and stipulated to Marcelo’s and Sahagun’s testimonies; the defense presented petitioner as sole witness. The RTC found the corpus delicti established and convicted petitioner for violations of Sections 11 and 12 of RA 9165. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on appeal. Petitioner then sought relief before the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

(1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming conviction despite an invalid search warrant and the consequent inadmissibility of seized evidence; (2) whether the CA erred in affirming conviction despite noncompliance with the inventory and witness requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended.

Standard of Review

The Court noted that while Rule 45 petitions generally raise questions of law, in criminal cases the entire record is open for review. The Court therefore considered factual and legal matters presented in the record.

One-Specific-Offense Rule — Invalidity of the Search Warrant

The Supreme Court held the search warrant void because it violated the one-specific-offense rule by authorizing search in connection with both alleged violations of RA 9165 and RA 10591. The Court reiterated that a warrant must be grounded on probable cause in connection with a single, specifically identified offense to prevent scatter-shot warrants and to ensure the issuing judge is satisfied that the evidence pertains to that offense. The Court relied on prior decisions (e.g., Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. Razon-Alvarez; People v. Pastrana; Vallejo v. Court of Appeals) to explain the constitutional and procedural rationale. The Court rejected the Office of the Solicitor General’s severability argument as inapt where multiple offenses are listed, concluding that the totality of the warrant could have led to wholesale enforcement across all listed offenses and therefore could not be severed after implementation. The Court distinguished precedents that allowed severance of objectionable items from an otherwise valid warrant, noting those dealt with items rather than multiple offenses.

Standing to Challenge and the Effect on Arrest and Evidence

The Court held that petitioner was entitled to challenge the validity of the search warrant because he was directly affected by its implementation. The Court cited Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mendoza to support the proposition that one need not be a party to the search-warrant proceeding to seek suppression when one’s rights are impaired by the execution of that warrant. Given that the officers’ presence and consequent observation/arrest of petitioner were made possible by the warrant, the validity of the warrant was material to the lawfulness of the arrest and seizure. The Court emphasized that the waiver rule (failure to move to quash before arraignment) affects only jurisdiction over the person and does not carry a concomitant waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal arrest (citing Dominguez v. People and Homar v. People). Thus, even if petitioner forfeited motion to quash the arrest before arraignment, he could still contest admissibility of the evidence obtained through the invalid implementation.

Plain View Doctrine Inapplicable

The Court concluded the plain view doctrine did not validate the seizure. The doctrine requires that an officer be lawfully positioned to view the evidence; here the officers had no lawful initial intrusion because it was the invalid search warrant that lent them apparent authority to be on the premises. Because the discovery of the items was dependent on that presence, the plain view exception could not be invoked.

Chain of Custody and Noncompliance with Section 21, RA 9165 (as amended)

The Court determined that the prosecution failed to satisfy the statutory chain of custody and inventory requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. The statute requires an immediate inventory and photography in the presence of the accused (or representative), an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The Court emphasized the purpose of thes

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms