Case Summary (G.R. No. 226912)
Key Dates
• October 3, 1998 – Alleged unlawful possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”).
• October 6, 1998 – Test-buy operation yielding shabu purchase.
• October 9, 1998 – Search warrant issued by RTC Manila, Branch 35.
• October 12, 1998 – Execution of warrant; respondents arrested.
• August 15, 2001 – RTC Manila, Branch 27 decision convicting respondents.
• July 1, 2003 – Supreme Court decision on appeal (G.R. No. 149878).
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 2 – Probable cause, warrant requirements.
• Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).
Factual Background
Police received information about drug activities at Unit 4-B of HCL Building. From October 2–5, 1998, they conducted surveillance. On October 6, 1998, with a Chinese-speaking asset, they performed a test-buy of shabu valued at ₱2,000. No arrests were made pending a search warrant.
Pre-Warrant Operations: Surveillance and Test-Buy
• Witnesses SPO1 Anthony de Leon, PO2 Artemio Santillan, PO3 Albert Amurao testified to:
– Continuous monitoring of HCL Building.
– Controlled purchase confirming the substance as methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Issuance and Implementation of Search Warrant
• October 9, 1998: Judge Ramon Makasiar granted a warrant to search Unit 4-B, naming “Timothy Tiu.”
• October 12, 1998: Police, accompanied by building coordinator Noel Olarte and wife Joji, executed the warrant.
– Found in master’s bedroom:
• One black leather men’s handbag containing 234.5 g of shabu.
• One lady’s handbag containing 20.3673 g of shabu.
• An improvised tooter, weighing scale, burner, rolled tissue.
– Searched Honda Civic (no description in warrant) and seized 6.2243 g of shabu.
Defense’s Version
• Tiu Won denied being “Timothy Tiu” or residing in Unit 4-B; claimed marital residence elsewhere.
• Qui Yaling admitted occupancy of one room but denied ownership of the seized handbag.
• They asserted police misrepresentation, coerced entry by posing as electric collectors, and contested the search’s legality.
• Both denied knowledge or possession of shabu; claimed jewelry business dealings.
Trial Court Decision
• RTC Manila, Branch 27 (Aug 15, 2001) found respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of shabu.
• Sentenced both to reclusion perpetua and ₱500,000 fine.
Issues on Appeal
- Legality and sufficiency of the search warrant.
- Admissibility of seized evidence.
- Sufficiency of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- Alleged violation of respondents’ constitutional rights.
Legality of the Search Warrant and Its Implementation
• Constitution requires warrants on probable cause personally determined by a judge, sworn examination of complainant and witnesses, and particular description of place and persons or things to be seized.
• Mistake in naming the person searched does not invalidate a warrant if:
– Place description is accurate.
– Officers had personal knowledge (surveillance, test-buy).
– “John Doe” warrants with sufficient descriptio personae are valid.
• The search of Unit 4-B complied with these requisites despite misnomer of “Timothy Tiu.”
Legality of the Vehicle Search
• Warrant did not authorize vehicle search.
• Warrantless search of the Honda Civic was invalid:
– Not incidental to lawful arrest (vehicle parked meters away).
– Exceeded scope of the warrant’s description.
Elements of Illegal Possession
To convict for lack of authorization under the Dangerous Drugs Act, prosecution must prove:
- Possession of a regulated drug (shabu).
- Lack of legal authority or prescription.
- Conscious and voluntary possession by the accused.
• Good faith is immaterial; the offense is malum prohibitum.
Attribution of Possession to Each Accused
• No conspiracy alleged or proven; each accused’s possession must be individually established.
• Tiu Won admitted ownership of the men’s handbag containing 234.5 g of shabu.
• Qui Yaling’s in-court denial contradicted by admission that the ladies’ handbag was hers, containing 20.3673 g of shabu.
• Defense failure to present third-
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 226912)
Facts
- On or about October 3, 1998, in Manila, appellants were alleged to possess methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) without authority.
- Police conducted surveillance of HCL Building, 1025 Masangkay St., Binondo, Manila on October 2–5, 1998, based on information of drug activities.
- A test‐buy operation on October 6, 1998 yielded P2,000 worth of substance later confirmed by the PNP crime laboratory as shabu.
- A search warrant issued October 9, 1998 by RTC Branch 35, Manila, named “Timothy Tiu” and described Unit 4-B of the HCL Building.
- On October 12, 1998, with building coordinator Noel Olarte and his wife Joji as witnesses, police executed the warrant at Unit 4-B:
- One sealed plastic bag containing 234.5 g of white crystalline substance (Exhibit D) found in a black leather man’s handbag.
- Sixteen sealed sachets totaling 20.3673 g of the same substance (Exhibits F–F-15) in a lady’s handbag.
- An improvised tooter with traces of the substance, a weighing scale, an improvised burner, and a rolled tissue paper.
- A separate warrantless search of a Honda Civic (plate WCP 157) parked outside uncovered four sachets (6.2243 g) of shabu; this search was later deemed illegal.
- Appellants, along with a housemaid, were arrested and charged under Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by RA 7659, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Procedural History
- Information filed charging appellants with violation of Section 16, Article III in relation to Section 2(e-2), Article I of RA 6425, as amended.
- During arraignment, appellants pled not guilty; their counsel and the prosecution stipulated authenticity of documents and existence of exhibits.
- RTC Branch 27, Manila, rendered judgment on August 15, 2001, finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposing re