JOVI FRANCISCO SEVILLA

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
PROFESSOR: ATTY. VICTOR TULALIAN

CASE DIGEST # 1: Del Rosario v People GR No. 142295

FACTS: Accused-appellant Del Rosario was found guilty of violation of P. D.

No. 1866 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos. Allegedly, sometime in May
1996, the police received a report that accused-appellant Vicente del Rosario was
in possession of certain firearms without the necessary licenses. Acting upon the
report, the PNP Criminal Investigation Group inquired from the PNP Firearms and
Explosive Division whether or not the report was true. The PNP Firearms and
Explosives Division issued a certification stating that per records in his office, the
appellant is not a licensed firearm holder of any kind and caliber. Armed with the
said certification the police applied for a search warrant to enable them to search
the house of appellant. Upon the issuance of the warrant, a team led by P/Sr. Insp.
Adique went to Norzagaray to serve the warrant. Before proceeding to the
residence of the appellant, the police officers requested Barangay Chairman
Rogelio de Silva and Barangay Councilman Aurelio Panteleon to accompany them
in the implementation of the warrant. Upon arrival at the house of appellant, the
police officers introduced themselves to the wife of appellant. When the appellant
came out, P/Sr. Insp. Adique informed him that they had a search warrant and that
they were authorized to search his house. After appellant gave his permission, the
police officers conducted a search of the house. The search yielded the following
items: (A) a caliber .45 pistol with Serial No. 703792 with five magazines of
caliber .45 (Exhibits B and H) found at the master's bedroom; (B) five magazines
of 5.56 M-16 rifle and two radios (Exhibits C to C-4) found in the room of
appellant's daughter; and (C) a caliber .22 revolver with Serial No. 48673 (Exhibit
F) containing 8 pieces of live ammunition found in the kitchen of the house. When
asked about his license to possess the firearms, the appellant failed to produce any.
This prompted the police officers to seize the subject firearms.
For his defense, appellant contends that he had a license for the caliber .45 pistol
recovered in his bedroom and that the other items seized during the search
including the caliber .22 revolver, were merely planted by the police officers.
Appellant likewise assails the manner in which the search was carried out,
claiming that the police officers just barged into his house without asking
permission. Furthermore, he claimed that the barangay officials arrived only after
the police already had finished the search. However, after trial the trial court
rendered a judgment of conviction which decision was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.

ISSUE: WON the seizure of items not mentioned in the search warrant was
illegal?

RULING: YES, The Supreme Court REVERSES the decision of the Court of
Appeals and ACQUITS petitioner Vicente del Rosario y Nicolas of the charge of
violation of P. D. No. 1866. The Seizure is limited to those items particularly
described in a valid search warrant. Searching officers are without discretion
regarding what articles they shall seize. Evidence seized on the occasion of such an
unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and excluded for being the proverbial
"fruit of a poisonous tree." In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. In this case, the
firearm was not found inadvertently and in plain view. It was found as a result of a
meticulous search in the kitchen of petitioner's house. This firearm, to emphasize,
was not mentioned in the search warrant. Thus, the seizure is illegal.

CASE DIGEST # 2: People v. STANLEY MADERAZO Y ROMERO GR No.

235348

FACTS: Police Superintendent Jaycees De Sagun Tolentino filed two separate

applications for search warrants against Maderazo, Nestor Alea, Daren Mabansag
and Lovely Joy Alcantara. In his search warrant applications, Tolentino alleged
that he has been informed by barangay officials, Loida and Rivera (Rivera), that
Maderazo, along with Alea, Mabansag and Alcantara, is keeping an undetermined
quantity of dangerous drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearms of unknown caliber
and ammunitions inside his residence in Barangay Lazareto, Calapan City, Oriental
Mindoro. Calapan City Police Station served a warrant of arrest against Maderazo
for attempted murder. After Manderazo was arrested, Roco and Rivera (as
barangay officials) decided to talk to Maderazo, who admitted to them that he is
keeping inside the subject house approximately 40 grams of illegal drugs, drug
paraphernalia, and a firearm. Tolentino allegedly verified said information through
casing and surveillance. After the preliminary investigation of witnesses Roco and
Rivera, under oath, Executive Judge Tomas C. Leynes issued two Search Warrants,
one for violation of Republic Act No.9165 and second, for violation of R.A. No.
10591. By virtue of the search warrants, police officers recovered heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets which were suspected to be containing shabu, various
drug paraphernalia, a .38 caliber revolver, live ammunitions, mobile phones,
computer laptop, cash, among others, from the premises. Maderazo, Alea, and
Mabansag were, subsequently, charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs
and drug paraphernalia, and illegal possession of firearms. Maderazo filed the
Motion to Quash, arguing that the Search Warrants were issued without probable
cause thus, all items seized by virtue of their enforcement were inadmissible in
evidence. However, the trial court rendered its order denying the motion to quash.
Maderazo moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied. Maderazo filed a
petition for certiorari before the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court when it denied the
motion to quash search warrants. The CA granted the petition for certiorari, and
nullified and set aside the Search Warrants. It, likewise, held that the items
allegedly seized in the house being rented by Maderazo by virtue of the said search
warrants are inadmissible in evidence against him since the access therein by the
police officers used void search warrants.

ISSUE: WON the prohibited articles seized in the course of the search was
inadmissible?

RULING: YES, The prohibited articles is inadmissible, Settled is the rule that
where entry into the premises to be searched was gained by virtue of a void search
warrant, prohibited articles seized in the course of the search are inadmissible
against the accused. In ruling against the admissibility of the items seized, the
Court held that prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the search is
valid. In this case, it was not because: (1) there was no valid search warrants; and
(2) absent such a warrant, the right thereto was not validly waived by Maderazo. In
short, the police officers who entered petitioner's premises had no right to search
the premises and, therefore, had no right either to seize the prohibited drugs and
articles and firearms.20 It is as if they entered Maderazo's house without a warrant,
making their entry therein illegal, and the items seized, inadmissible.

CASE DIGEST # 3: Leon Tambasen v People GR No. 89103

FACTS: PSgt. Flumar Natuel applied for the issuance of a search warrant from
the MTCC, alleging that he received information that petitioner had in his
possession at his house at the North Capitol Road, Bacolod City, "M-16 Armalite
Rifles (Mags & Ammos), Hand Grenades, .45 Cal. Pistols (Mags & Ammos),
Dynamite Sticks and Subversive Documents," which articles were "used or
intended to be used" for illegal purposes (Rollo, p. 14). On the same day, the
application was granted by the MTCC with the issuance of Search Warrant No.
365, which allowed the seizure of the items specified in the application. On
September 9, 1988, a police team searched the house of petitioner and seized the
following articles (1) Two envelops containing cash in the total amount of
P14,000.00, one envelope P10,000.00 and another P4,000.00, (2) one AR 280
handset w/antenna (3) one YAESU FM Transceiver FT 23R w/ Antenna (4) one
ALINCO ELH 230D Base (5) one DC Regulator Supply 150 V. 13.8 V 12 AMP
(6) one brown Academy Notebook & Assorted papers (7) Four handsets battery
pack. Petitioner filed before the MTCC a motion praying that the search and
seizure be declared illegal and that the seized articles be returned to him. In his
answer to the motion, Lt. Col. Nicolas Torres, the station commander of the
Bacolod City Police, said that the amount of P14,000.00 had been earmarked for
the payment of the allowance of the Armed City Partisan and other known NPA
personalities operating in the City of Bacolod. On December 23, 1988, the MTCC
issued an order directing Lt. Col. Torres to return the money seized to petitioner,
three months later, the Solicitor General filed before the RTC Branch 44, Bacolod
City a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of the order of the MTCC.
RTC, Branch 44 issued an order granting the petition for certiorari and directing
the clerk of court to return to the MTCC the money pending the resolution of the
preliminary investigation being conducted by the city prosecutor on the criminal
complaint.

ISSUE: WON the seizure of the articles which were not mentioned in the
search warrant was legal?

RULING: YES, the seizure of articles not described in the search warrant, the
police acted beyond the parameters of their authority under the search warrant.
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution requires that a search warrant should
particularly describe the things to be seized. The evident purpose and intent of the
requirement is no limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly
described in the search warrant to leave the officers of the law with no discretion
regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and
seizures may not be made and that abuses may not be committed. The same
constitutional provision is also aimed at preventing violations of security in person
and property and unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the home, and giving
remedy against such usurpation’s when attempted. Clearly then, the money which
was not indicated in the search warrant, had been illegally seized from petitioner.
The fact that the members of the police team were doing their task of pursuing
subversive is not a valid excuse for the illegal seizure. The presumption juris
tantum of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself prevail
against the constitutionally protected rights of an individual. Although public
welfare is the foundation of the power to search and seize, such power must be
exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of
the citizens. As the Court aptly puts it in Bagalihog v. Fernadez, 198 SCRA 614 in
the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the
Constitution itself abhors.