Case Summary (G.R. No. 228904)
Antecedent Facts
- December 1, 2003: Two informations filed against petitioner.
• Case No. 4738 for possession of drug paraphernalia (foil, lighters, blade) found in a comfort room near his house.
• Case No. 4739 for possession of 0.040 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride in heat-sealed sachets. - Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment; only identity was admitted at pre-trial.
Prosecution Version
- October 2, 2003, at around 5:20 a.m., police executed Search Warrant No. AEK 29-2003 at petitioner’s premises to seize shabu and paraphernalia.
- Barangay officials assisted.
- In the comfort room, two sachets of suspected shabu fell from the roof braces; police marked and inventoried them along with foil, lighters, a blade, and live ammunition found inside the house.
- A duly signed Receipt of Property Seized was prepared; petitioner and two others were arrested and items sent for laboratory examination.
- Chemistry Report confirmed presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Defense Version
- Petitioner and his wife testified they were asleep, first learning of the items at inventory.
- Claimed no warrant was presented during the search—saw it only at trial.
- Alleged irregular search conduct: the officer left and returned calling “positive,” suggesting planting of evidence.
- Argued lack of exclusive control over the comfort room and presence of others during search.
Regional Trial Court Ruling
- September 5, 2007: RTC convicted petitioner of:
• Violation of Section 12, Article II, RA 9165 (possession of paraphernalia); penalty: 6 months–2 years imprisonment plus ₱10,000 fine.
• Violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 (possession of shabu); penalty: 12 years–14 years imprisonment plus ₱300,000 fine. - Relied on presumption of regularity in police operations; rejected frame-up defense.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- Affirmed RTC decision.
- Held that petitioner waived his right to challenge the warrant by failing to object at trial on constitutional grounds; formal-offer objections were insufficient.
- Upheld conviction on basis of exclusive control over the comfort room and presumption of regularity.
Issues Presented
- Did petitioner waive his right to challenge the legality of the search warrant?
- Even if no waiver, was the search so irregular that the seized evidence should be suppressed?
Applicable Constitutional Provision
1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures … no search warrant … shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
Supreme Court Analysis
- The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is fundamental and protected by Section 2, Article III.
- Rule 126, Section 5 requires a judge to examine under oath the complainant and witnesses and attach their depositions and affidavits. This procedural requirement ensures an independent determination of probable cause but is not itself constitutional; what is constitutional is the judge’s personal, probing examination.
- Absent depositions or transcript, a warrant may stand if the record shows the required examination and basis for probable cause. Courts give deference if there is a substantial basis: facts that would lead a prudent person to believe an offense occurred and the objects are at the place.
- In this case, records contain no evidence that the issuing judge personally and thoroughly examined any witness or applicant. The application and affidavits are missing, and trial testimony did not reference any such examination. The officer who testified did not know who applied for the warrant.
- A
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 228904)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- G.R. No. 188794, decided September 2, 2015 by the Supreme Court (Second Division).
- Petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated March 31, 2009 and Resolution dated July 10, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR No. 31154.
- CA had affirmed the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Ligao City, Albay’s joint judgment of September 5, 2007, convicting petitioner under Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
Antecedent Facts
- On December 1, 2003, two Informations were filed against Honesto Ogayon y Diaz:
- Criminal Case No. 4738: possession of four aluminum foil pieces, four disposable lighters, one Dorco blade, one roll of aluminum foil—paraphernalia for “smoking or consuming shabu.”
- Criminal Case No. 4739: possession of two heat-sealed sachets containing 0.040 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
- Arraignments held January 21, 2004 (Case 4738) and March 17, 2004 (Case 4739); petitioner pleaded “not guilty.”
- Joint pre-trial on May 5, 2004 produced only an admission as to the accused’s identity.
Prosecution Version
- On October 2, 2003 at about 5:20 a.m., police executed Search Warrant No. AEK 29-2003 at petitioner’s residence in Barangay Iraya, Guinobatan, Albay.
- Barangay tanod Jose Lagana and Kagawad Lauro Tampocao assisted the search.
- Police first restrained two persons in a nearby nipa hut, then presented the warrant to Ogayon, who consented to the search.
- In the comfort room five meters from the house, officers found two heat-sealed sachets suspected to contain shabu plus four disposable lighters, a six-inch knife, used and roll aluminum foil, and a Dorco blade.
- Items were initialed, inventoried, and included ammunition found inside the house. Receipt of Property Seized signed by police, DOJ representatives, media, and barangay officials.
- Ogayon and two others were arrested; seized sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride per PNP Forensic Chemistry Report.
Defense Version
- Petitioner denied knowledge of drugs and paraphernalia; first saw items during inventory.
- Wife Zenaida corroborated that no warrant was