Title
People vs. Estrada
Case
G.R. No. 124461
Decision Date
Sep 25, 1998
Search warrant quashed due to lack of probable cause, insufficient description of place, and unreasonable search of a warehouse owned by another.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 259815)

Petition and Lower Court Proceedings

BFAD applied for a search warrant to search the premises of Aiden Lanuza for unlicensed sale of medicines. The application mistakenly recited a different target (Belen Cabanero, Talisay, Cebu) in one paragraph but elsewhere clearly identified Lanuza at 516 San Jose de la Montana Street. The RTC issued Search Warrant No. 958 (95) and the PNP team executed it, initially searching Lanuza’s residence (negative result) then a nearby warehouse (Lot 38) where the medicines were found. Lanuza moved to quash on six grounds, including misdescription of premises, lack of authorization, absence of probable cause evidence, insufficient particularity, and overbreadth in execution. The trial court granted the motion to quash and ordered return of the items; a reconsideration motion was denied. BFAD sought relief from the Supreme Court.

Constitutional and Statutory Requirements

Under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause determined personally by the judge after examining the complainant and witnesses under oath, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized. RA 7394 Art. 40(k) prohibits the distribution or sale of drug products without a BFAD license; Art. 41 prescribes penalties.

Harmless Clerical Error

The sole misreference to Belen Cabanero in the application was a clerical mistake, promptly explained by concurrent applications filed on the same day. The warrant itself unambiguously targeted Aiden Lanuza at the Cebu City address, and the error did not mislead the issuing judge or the executing officers.

Failure to Establish Probable Cause

Probable cause to issue a warrant requires facts and circumstances leading a prudent person to believe an offense has been or is about to be committed, and that the evidence is at the place to be searched. Here, BFAD relied solely on an oral report and an affidavit stating that registry verification showed no license. No documentary certification from the Department of Health or BFAD registry was presented. In offenses involving negative ingredients (absence of license), the best evidence rule mandates production of the actual certification or a justifiable reason for its absence. Mere allegation is insufficient.

Lack of Particularity in Description

Although BFAD attached a sketch of the entire compound, the warrant described only the general address—“516 San Jose de la Montana Street, Mabolo, Cebu City”—without specifying Lanuza’s house (Lot 41). The compound included multiple structures and a separate warehouse (Lot 38). Such a g

...continue reading

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

About Privacy Terms