Case Summary (G.R. No. 224935)
Execution of the Warrant and Seizure of Evidence
On October 24, 2010, PNP-AIDSOTF operatives executed the warrant at “Purok 3A, Barangay Dalahican,” seizing an undetermined quantity of suspected shabu (later confirmed by PNP lab), a .45 Remington pistol with ammunition, two magazines, and vehicles bearing plates XPX-792 and ZRY-758.
Trial Court Proceedings: Omnibus Motion
Sio filed an omnibus motion challenging the warrant’s validity—citing wrong address, nonexistence or misregistration of listed vehicles, absence of PDEA operatives, and alleged evidence planting. The RTC denied the motion on May 7, 2013, finding probable cause to issue an arrest warrant and ordering Sio’s arrest. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Court of Appeals Review
By certiorari under Rule 65, Sio alleged grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA held that the trial judge had independently examined the records, properly determined probable cause, and acted within jurisdiction. The CA dismissed the petition on November 27, 2015, and denied reconsideration on May 10, 2016.
Supreme Court Petition for Review on Certiorari
Sio’s Rule 45 petition urged that warrant implementation deviated from law: the PNP-AIDSOTF acted without PDEA, media, or barangay representatives; entry occurred three hours before these witnesses arrived; the lawful occupant was absent during the inventory. He argued these irregularities rendered the search unreasonable and the seized evidence inadmissible, thus negating probable cause.
Issues for Resolution
- Whether the warrant’s implementation was unreasonable, making the seized evidence inadmissible
- Whether, absent that evidence, probable cause existed for the Informations
Constitutional and Statutory Search Warrant Requirements
Under the 1987 Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 2) and Rule 126, Sec. 4, warrants must be issued upon personal judicial determination of probable cause, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and items to be seized, limiting law enforcement discretion.
Implementation Irregularities and Scope Enlargement
The warrant specified Ilaya Ibaba, Purok 34, and vehicles ZYR-468 and ZGS-763. In practice, police searched Purok 3A and seized vehicles XPX-792 and ZRY-758. Such deviations from the warrant’s text constitute an unlawful expansion of scope, depriving Sio of constitutional protections and facilitating possible abuse or planting of evidence.
Chain of Custody under RA 9165
Section 21 of RA 9165 mandates that immediately after seizure, drugs be inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused (or representative), media, DOJ representative, and an elected public official, at the place of service. Here, required witnesses arrived only three hours later—or not at all (no DOJ rep)—undermining the integrity of the corpus delicti and violat
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 224935)
Facts
- In October 2010, Police Senior Inspector Paulino G. Raguindin of the PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force secured a search warrant from the Manila Regional Trial Court to search petitioner’s residence in Ilaya Ibaba, Purok 34, Barangay Dalahican, Lucena City.
- The warrant described the places and things to be seized: an undetermined quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”); paraphernalia; a Toyota Camry (Plate No. ZYR-468); a Honda Civic (Plate No. ZGS-763); and other documents.
- Implementation on 24 October 2010 occurred at Barangay Purok 3A (not Purok 34), without PDEA operatives and initially without media or barangay officials.
- The operatives seized: an undetermined quantity of suspected shabu; a .45-caliber Remington pistol with 18 live rounds and two magazines; and two vehicles bearing Plate Nos. XPX-792 (Honda CRV) and ZRY-758 (Toyota Camry), none matching those in the warrant.
- Laboratory tests confirmed the crystalline substance as shabu. Two separate informations (Crim. Case Nos. 2011-789 and 2011-790) charged Sio with:
• Possession of 116.16 grams of shabu (Section 11, RA 9165)
• Possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 12, RA 9165)
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion in the RTC Branch 59 to quash the warrant, alleging: incorrect vehicle descriptions; wrong location; absence of PDEA; planting of evidence. The motion was denied and an arrest warrant issued.
- RTC denied reconsideration on 15 April 2014.
- Sio sought certiorari relief via Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals. On 27 November 2015, the CA dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. A motion for reconsideration was denied on 10 May 20