Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Tee
Case
G.R. No. 140546-47
Decision Date
Jan 20, 2003
A Chinese businessman in Baguio was convicted for illegal possession of 591.81 kg of marijuana after a valid search warrant led to its discovery. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140546-47)

Parties

Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Modesto Tee a.k.a. Estoy Tee

Key Dates

• July 1, 1998 – Stakeout yields discovery of 336.93 kg of marijuana at rented premises.
• July 20, 1998 – Motion to quash search warrant filed.
• July 24 & August 7, 1998 – Informations filed and amended (Crim. Cases Nos. 15800-R & 15822-R).
• September 17, 1999 – RTC Branch 6, Baguio City issues judgment.
• January 20, 2003 – Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2 (search and seizure).
• Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), Secs. 8, 20, as amended by RA 7659.
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 63 (indivisible penalties).
• 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure (search warrant and reopening).
• 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure (trial conduct).

Facts

Tee leased premises purportedly for cigarette storage but filled them with marijuana. Taxi driver Danilo Abratique facilitated transport of 336.93 kg to the rented room and 591.81 kg to Tee’s residence. Fearing implication, Abratique informed his NBI agent brother-in-law, Edwin Fianza. On July 1, 1998, NBI and PNP-NARCOM jointly searched the rented room (without warrant) and later obtained Warrant No. 415 (7-98) from RTC Judge Antonio Reyes to search Tee’s residence, where 591.81 kg of marijuana were seized. Abratique and media, barangay officials, and family witnessed the search.

Trial Court Proceedings

In Crim. Case No. 15822-R (336.93 kg), evidence was ruled inadmissible as product of an unreasonable search and Tee was acquitted. In Crim. Case No. 15800-R (591.81 kg), the court denied the motion to quash the warrant, found Tee guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of marijuana, sentenced him to death, and imposed a ₱1 million fine. Tee’s motion for speedy trial and objections to reopening were denied.

Issues for Resolution

  1. Validity of the search warrant obtained and executed at Tee’s residence.
  2. Alleged violation of Tee’s right to a speedy trial and prejudice from case reopening.
  3. Sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence to establish guilt.
  4. Appropriateness of the penalty imposed.

Validity of Search Warrant

• Particularity: “Undetermined amount of marijuana” aptly described illegal drugs; further specification impossible prior to search.
• Offense Description: Cited violation of Sec. 8 RA 6425 clearly identified the single offense—illegal possession of marijuana.
• Judicial Examination: Judge Reyes personally examined NBI Agent Lising and witness Abratique under oath; failure to attach depositions not fatal as record reflects vigorous questioning.
• Place Description: Address and sketch by Abratique enabled officers to locate Tee’s residence without mistake.
• Execution: Warrant served personally on Tee; no force or damage; numerous witnesses observed the search.
Conclusion: The warrant satisfied constitutional and procedural requirements; search and seizure at Tee’s residence were lawful.

Speedy Trial and Reopening

• Tee alleged twenty (20) missed hearings due to Abratique’s absences violated his right to a speedy trial. The court issued multiple arrest orders to compel the witness, and delays totaled less than two months of actual trial time, without evidence of prosecutorial bad faith or vexatious delay.
• Reopening: The prosecution never formally rested; “reopening” merely completed Abratique’s unfinished testimony. Tee raised no timely objection, and no prejudice resulted.
Conclusion: There was no capricious or oppressive delay, nor abuse of discretion in allowing further testimony.

Sufficiency of Evidence

• Possession: Physical recovery of 591.81 kg of marijuana from Tee’s residence under valid warrant.
• Knowledge/Intent: Abratique’s testimony established Tee’s control over the stash; statutory presumption of animus possidendi applies absent satisfactory explanation.
• For


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms