[ G.R. No.

257683, October 21, 2024 ]

JIMMY B. PUGUON, JR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

GAERLAN, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court, as amended, assailing the Decision2 dated June 30, 2021 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 164326.

The challenged issuance denied the Rule 653 Petition

for Certiorari4 interposed by petitioner Jimmy B. Puguon, Jr. (Puguon) from
the Resolution5 dated September 6, 2019 and the Order6 dated November
21, 2019 which were issued by Branch 31 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Cabarroguis, Quirino which rejected Puguon's attempt at
quashing the search warrant issued against him.

Antecedents

On July 2, 2019, Search Warrant No. 0015-20197 was issued by the

RTC against Puguon, the entirety of which reading as follows:

Republic of the Philippines

Second Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 31
Cabarroguis, Quirino
--o0o--

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff, SEARCH WARRANT NO.
0015-2019
-versus-

JIMMY PUGUON JR. y BALLAWON

Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------x

SEARCH WARRANT

TO ANY OFFICER OF THE LAW:

It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned, after examining

under oath, the herein applicant Police Major Michael DG Bautista,
Provincial Officer CIDG Quirino Province and with the questions and
answers given by 3 deponents on the persons of Patrolman Aldrin Joy D.
Pantigan, Jerry Dominguez y Valdez and Jun Marquez y Felix, that there is
probable cause to believe that a violation of RA 10951 [sic], otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunitions, has
been committed and still being committed and that there are good and
sufficient reasons to believe that JIMMY PUGUON JR. Y BALLAWON has
in his direct possession and control one (1) M16 riffle [sic]; one (1) cal. 45
pistol; one (1) cal. 38 revolver; 2 handgrenades [sic] and ammunitions [sic]
for the above-described firearms at his house located at Barangay Rizal,
Diffun, Quirino and forthwith seize-take possession of said above described
items at any time of the day or night and bring them to this court together
with an actual and complete inventory thereof duly verified under oath of
the undersigned to be dealt with as the law directs.

As this Search Warrant is valid only for 10 days from issue pursuant to
Section 10 Rule 126 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
corresponding return thereof must be filed in the tribunal within the same
period of time as mandated by Section 12 (b) of the same rules.

SO ORDERED.

Cabarroguis, Quirino, July 2, 2019.

(Signed)
ANDREW P. DULNUAN
Presiding Judge8

By virtue of the execution of the foregoing search warrant, two separate

Informations were filed against Puguon which, in turn, led to the filing of
criminal cases against him, namely: (a) Criminal Case No. 3901-2019, for
violation of Republic Act No. 10591,9 otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act; and (b) Criminal
Case No. 3902-2019, for violation of Republic Act No. 9516.10

Proceedings before the RTC

Questioning the validity of Search Warrant No. 0015-2019, Puguon filed

with the RTC a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion to Quash Search Warrant, to
Suppress Evidence and to Dismiss Criminal Informations11 dated August
8, 2019. Puguon argued that Search Warrant No. 0015-2019 is a scatter-
shot warrant which violated his constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizures.(awÞhi( Instead of being issued in connection with
one specific offense, Puguon contended that said search warrant covered
two separate and distinct offenses that are covered by different special
penal laws. Since the evidence retrieved by the police officers who
executed Search Warrant No. 0015-2019 are inadmissible for being the
proverbial fruits of the poisonous tree, Puguon prayed that the criminal
cases against him be dismissed with prejudice.

In his Comment/Opposition to the Motion to Quash Search Warrant, to

Suppress Evidence and Dismiss Criminal Informations12 dated September
2, 2019, Prosecutor Joselito G. Fajardo (Pros. Fajardo) countered that
Search Warrant No. 0015-2019 is not a scatter-shot warrant because
Republic Act No. 10591 and Republic Act No. 9516 originate from the
same law, Presidential Decree No. 1866.13 Pros. Fajardo likewise invoked
the ruling of the Court in People v. Pastrana14 which, in turn, cited the case
of Prudente v. Dayrit.15 Invoking the latter case, Pros. Fajardo pressed
upon the statement that "while illegal possession of firearms is penalized
under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 and illegal possession of
explosives is penalized under Section 3 thereof, it cannot be overlooked
that said decree is a codification of the various laws on illegal possession of
firearms, ammunitions and explosives; such illegal possession of items
destructive of life and property are related offenses or belong to the same
species, as to be subsumed within the category of illegal possession of
firearms, etc. under Presidential Decree No. 1866."16

The RTC Ruling

On September 6, 2019, the RTC rendered a Resolution17 denying

Puguon's motion. The said court explained that since illegal possession of
firearms, ammunition and explosives belong to the same class of offenses,
the said crimes could be the subject matter of only one search warrant.
Thus:

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Motion to Quash

Search Warrant, to Suppress Evidence and Dismiss Criminal
Informations is hereby DENIED[.]

SO ORDERED.18

Puguon's Joint Motion for Reconsideration19 dated September 27,

2019, duly opposed20 by Pros. Fajardo, was likewise denied by the RTC in
its Order21 dated November 21, 2019.

Proceedings before the CA

Aggrieved, Puguon filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari22 under

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended.

Excoriating the issuances of the RTC for allegedly being tainted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
Puguon asseverated that the acts penalized by Republic Act No. 10591
and Republic Act No. 9516 cannot be considered to fall within the same
class in view of the former law's express repeal of Sections 1, 2, 5, and 7 of
Presidential Decree No. 1866. In particular, Republic Act No. 10591
contains the following repealing clause:

SECTION 45. Repealing Clause. — This Act repeals

Sections 1, 2, 5 and 7 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as
amended, and Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8294 and all other
laws, executive orders, letters of instruction, issuances,
circulars, administrative orders, rules or regulations that are
inconsistent herewith.

Puguon argued that since Republic Act No. 10591 is a new and special
law regarding illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, the offenses
covered therein are separate and distinct from the crime of illegal
possession of explosives under Republic Act No. 9516. Thus, Search
Warrant No. 0015-2019 is a scatter-shot warrant that is completely null and
void and all the evidence collected therefrom are inadmissible in court.
 In its Comment23 dated November 23, 2020, the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), representing the People, countermanded that Search
Warrant No. 0015-2019 did not violate Puguon's constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizures because it is not a scatter-shot
warrant. Also, citing the Prudente case, the OSG echoed Pros. Fajardo's
contention that Republic Act No. 10591 and Republic Act No. 9516 are
related offenses originating from the same law and belonging to the same
species, i.e., crimes involving illegal possession of items destructive of life
and property.

In his Reply24 dated February 18, 2021, Puguon reiterated that the
express repeal effected by Republic Act No. 10591 made the crimes
punishable under the said law separate and distinct from those covered by
Republic Act No. 1866. Thus, Prudente is inapplicable to the criminal cases
filed against him.

The CA Ruling

On June 30, 2021, the CA rendered the herein assailed

Decision25 denying Puguon's petition.

Relying upon the Prudente ruling, the CA ruled that Republic Act No.
10591 and Republic Act No. 9516 merely changed the penalties of the
crimes that they cover. They did not, however, change the nature of the
offenses.

Moreover, since the crimes of unlawful possession of firearms or

ammunition and unlawful possession of explosives have the same
elements, Search Warrant No. 0015-2019 was validly issued.

The CA disposed:

WHEREFORE the petition for certiorari is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.26 (Emphasis in the original)

Hence, the present recourse.

In the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari,27 Puguon reiterates his

arguments attacking the validity of Search Warrant No. 0015-2019. The
OSG, in its Comment28 dated May 19, 2023, likewise repleads its
contentions in favor of the legality of said search warrant.

Issue

The Court is tasked to determine whether Search Warrant No. 0015-

2019 violated Puguon's constitutional right against unreasonable searches
and seizures.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is partly meritorious.

I.

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is of ancient

English origin and can be traced to the common law knock-and-announce
principle which mandates law enforcement officers to identify themselves
and state their purpose before entering a house.29

In Semayne's case,30 decided in England in 1604, a landowner's right

to deny sheriffs entry to his house was upheld because they did not inform
him of their identities as well as the purpose of such entry. It was declared
that "the house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress"31 and, as
such:

In all cases where the King is party, the sheriff may break
the house, either to arrest or do other execution of the King's
process, if he cannot otherwise enter. But he ought first to
signify the cause of his coming, and make request to open the
doors.32

The same precept on the sanctity of a person's home was echoed by Sir
William Blackstone, "one of the greatest expounders of the common
law,"33 in his celebrated treatise, Commentaries on the Laws of England:

An arrest must be by corporal seizsing [sic] or touching the

defendant's body; after which the bailiff may justify breaking
open the house in which he is, to take him: otherwise, he has
no such power, but must watch his opportunity to arrest him.
For every man's house is looked upon by the law to be his
 castle of defence [sic] and asylum, wherein he should suffer no
violence.34

In the 1765 case of Entick v. Carrington,35 a warrant was issued by the

Secretary of State of England for the seizure of "books and
papers"36 belonging to writer John Entick who was suspected of the crime
of seditious libel. This resulted in the ransacking of his home for four hours
and the retrieval of various books and papers therefrom. Striking down the
warrant issued by the Secretary of State of England as a general warrant,
Lord Chief Justice Camden ruled that the former had no authority to do so,
thus:

This power, so assumed by the secretary of state, is an

execution upon all the party's papers, in the first instance. His
house is rifled; his most valuable secrets are taken out of his
possession, before the paper for which he is charged is found
to be criminal by any competent jurisdiction, and before he is
convicted either of writing, publishing, or being concerned in
the paper.37

The English knock-and-announce principle then spread swiftly

throughout the United States in the late 18th century.38 For instance, the
Commonwealth of Virginia ordained in 1776 its Declaration of
Rights,39 Section 10 of which expressly prohibits general warrants:

That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger

may be commanded to search suspected places without
evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or
persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly
described and supported by evidence, are grievous and
oppressive and ought not to be granted.40

In Boyd v. United States,41 the Supreme Court of the United States

hailed the earlier Entick ruling as "a monument of English freedom"42 and
"the true and ultimate expression of constitutional law"43 which served as
the inspiration for the crafting of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States of America. The said provision reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
 issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In this jurisdiction, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures

is derived from the Fourth Amendment.44 Thus, the 1935 Constitution
adopted a similar wording, viz.:

(3) The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue
but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.45

Likewise, in the 1973 Constitution:

Section 3. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and whatever purpose shall
not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the
judge, or such other responsible officer as maybe authorized
by law, after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.46

In our present Constitution, the right against unreasonable searches and

seizures is enshrined in Section 2 of the Bill of Rights:

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
 particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.47

The Warrant Clause, particularly the validity of search warrants, finds

relevance in this case.

A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People

of the Philippines signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him or her to search for personal property and bring it before
the court.48 It is not similar to a criminal action but is rather a legal process
that may be likened to a writ of discovery employed by no less than the
State to procure relevant evidence of a crime.49 As such, a search warrant
is generally issued by a court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction, and
not a criminal action to be entertained by a court pursuant to its original
jurisdiction.50

In view of the constitutional edict in the Bill of Rights, search warrants

are not issued on loose, vague or doubtful basis of facts, nor on mere
suspicion or belief.51 Rather, search warrants can only be issued upon a
finding of probable cause, or "such facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense
are in the place to be searched."52

The requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant are

enumerated in Rule 126, Section 4 of the Rules of Court:

Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search

warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in
connection with one specific offense to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)

Verily, the finding of probable cause as would justify the issuance of a

search warrant, must be in connection with one specific offense. This
requirement is intended to prevent scatter-shot warrants.53 After all, a
search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to
undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of
evidence or articles relating to a crime.54 As the Court explained in a case:

Since the primary objective of applying for a search warrant is

to obtain evidence to be used in a subsequent prosecution for
an offense for which the search warrant was applied, a judge
issuing a particular warrant must satisfy himself [or herself] that
the evidence presented by the applicant establishes the facts
and circumstances relating to this specific offense for which the
warrant is sought and issued. . .55

A search warrant that violates the "one specific offense" guideline is a

scatter-shot warrant and is completely null and void.56

II.

A perusal of Search Warrant No. 0015-2019 shows that while its caption
does not specify a particular offense, its body categorically states that it
was being issued in view of a finding of probable cause that Puguon
violated Republic Act No. 10591. However, the enumeration of the items
intended to be seized from Puguon, particularly the inclusion of hand
grenades, shows that the subjects of Search Warrant No. 0015-2019
squarely fall within the purview of two separate special penal laws,
Republic Act No. 10591 and Republic Act No. 9516. Specifically, the
enumerated firearms and ammunition are covered by Republic Act No.
10591 while the hand grenades listed therein fall under Republic Act No.
9516.

The Court disagrees with the OSG's theory that Republic Act No. 9516
and Republic Act No. 10591 both originate from Presidential Decree No.
1866. The same can only be said of the former, not the latter.

The language of Republic Act No. 9516 clearly shows that it amends
certain provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866. In addition to its
title,57 the three sections comprising the body of Republic Act No. 9516 are
summarized, thus: (a) Section 158 of Republic Act No. 9516 provides an
amendment to Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866; (b) Section
259 of Republic Act No. 9516 amends Section 4 of Presidential Decree No.
1866; and (c) Section 360 of Republic Act No. 9516 inserts new Sections 3-
B, 3-C, 3-D, 4, 4-A, 4-B, 4-C, 4-D, 4-E, and 4-F in Presidential Decree No.
1866. The absence of any standalone provision in Republic Act No. 9516 is
a clear indication that it originates from Presidential Decree No. 1866.

In contrast, Republic Act No. 10591 does not expressly amend any of
the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866. The only reference to
Presidential Decree No. 1866 lies in the repealing clause61 of the former.
Specifically, Sections 1, 2, 5, and 7 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 were
expressly repealed by Republic Act No. 10591. A side-by-side comparison
of these repealed provisions vis-à-vis those of Republic Act No. 10591 is in
order:

Expressly repealed Corresponding or equivalent

provision of P.D. No. 1866 provision in R.A. No. 10591
SECTION 1. Unlawful SECTION 28. Unlawful
Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, or Possession of
Acquisition, Disposition or Firearms and Ammunition. — The
Possession of Firearms or unlawful acquisition, possession of
Ammunition or Instruments firearms and ammunition shall be
Used or Intended to be Used penalized as follows:
in the Manufacture of
Firearms or Ammunition. — (a) The penalty of prision mayor in its
The penalty of reclusion medium period shall be imposed
temporal in its maximum upon any person who shall
period to reclusion unlawfully acquire or possess a
perpetua shall be imposed small arm;
upon any person who shall
unlawfully manufacture, deal (b) The penalty of reclusion
in, acquire, dispose, or temporal to reclusion
possess any firearm, part of perpetua shall be imposed if three
firearm, ammunition or (3) or more small arms or Class-A
machinery, tool or instrument light weapons are unlawfully
used or intended to be used in acquired or possesses by any
the manufacture of any person;
firearm or ammunition.
(c) The penalty of prision mayor in its
If the violation of this maximum period shall be imposed
Section is in furtherance of, or upon any person who shall
incident to, or in connection unlawfully acquire or possess a
with the crimes of rebellion,
insurrection or subversion, the Class-A light weapon;
penalty of death shall be
imposed. (d) The penalty of reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed upon
If homicide or murder is any person who shall unlawfully
committed with the use of an acquire or possess a Class-B light
unlicensed firearm, the weapon;
penalty of death shall be
imposed. (e) The penalty of one (1) degree
higher than that provided in
The penalty of reclusion paragraphs (a) to (c) in this section
temporal in its maximum shall be imposed upon any person
period to reclusion who shall unlawfully possess any
perpetua shall be imposed firearm under any or combination
upon the owner, president, of the following conditions:
manager, director or other
responsible officer of any (1) Loaded with ammunition or
public or private firm, inserted with a loaded
company, corporation or magazine;
entity, who shall willfully or
knowingly allow any of the (2) Fitted or mounted with laser
firearms owned by such firm, or any gadget used to guide
company, corporation or entity the shooter to hit the target
to be used by any person or such as thermal weapon
persons found guilty of sight (TWS) and the like;
violating the provisions of the
preceding paragraphs. (3) Fitted or mounted with
sniper scopes, firearm
The penalty of prision muffler or firearm silencer;
mayor shall be imposed upon
any person who shall carry (4) Accompanied with an extra
any licensed firearm outside barrel; and
his residence without legal
(5) Converted to be capable of
authority therefor.
firing full automatic bursts.

(f) The penalty of prision mayor in its

minimum period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall
 unlawfully acquire or possess a
major part of a small arm;

(g) The penalty of prision mayor in its

minimum period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess
ammunition for a small arm or
Class-A light weapon. If the
violation of this paragraph is
committed by the same person
charged with the unlawful
acquisition or possession of a
small arm, the former violation
shall be absorbed by the latter;

(h) The penalty of prision mayor in its

medium period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess a
major part of a Class-A light
weapon;

(i) The penalty of prision mayor in its

medium period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess
ammunition for a Class-A light
weapon. If the violation of this
paragraph is committed by the
same person charged with the
unlawful acquisition or possession
of a Class-A light weapon, the
former violation shall be absorbed
by the latter;

(j) The penalty of prision mayor in its

maximum period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall
 unlawfully acquire or possess a
major part of a Class-B light
weapon; and

(k) The penalty of prision mayor in its

maximum period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess
ammunition for a Class-B light
weapon. If the violation of this
paragraph is committed by the
same person charged with the
unlawful acquisition or possession
of a Class-B light weapon, the
former violation shall be absorbed
by the latter.
SECTION 2. Presumption SECTION 32. Unlawful
of Illegal Manufacture of Manufacture, Importation, Sale or
Firearms or Ammunition. — Disposition of Firearms or
The possession of any Ammunition or Parts Thereof,
machinery, tool or instrument Machinery, Tool or Instrument
used directly in the Used or Intended to be Used in
manufacture of firearms or the Manufacture of Firearms,
ammunition, by any person Ammunition or Parts Thereof. — . .
whose business or .
employment does not lawfully
deal with the manufacture of ....
firearms or ammunition, shall
be prima facie evidence that The possession of any
such article is intended to be machinery, tool or instrument used
used in the unlawful/illegal directly in the manufacture of
manufacture of firearms or firearms, ammunition, or major
ammunitions. parts thereof by any person whose
business, employment or activity
does not lawfully deal with the
possession of such article, shall
be prima facie evidence that such
article is intended to be used in the
 unlawful or illegal manufacture of
firearms, ammunition or parts
thereof.
SECTION 5. Tampering of SECTION 34. Tampering,
Firearm's Serial Number. — Obliteration or Alteration of
The penalty of prision Firearms Identification. — The
mayor shall be imposed upon penalty of prision
any person who shall correccional to prision mayor in its
unlawfully tamper, change, minimum period shall be imposed
deface or erase the serial upon any person who shall
number of any firearm. tamper, obliterate or alter without
authority the barrel, slide, frame,
receiver, cylinder, or bolt
assembly, including the name of
the maker, model, or serial
number of any firearm, or who
shall replace without authority the
barrel, slide, frame, receiver,
cylinder, or bolt assembly,
including its individual or peculiar
identifying characteristics essential
in forensic examination of a
firearm or light weapon.

The PNP shall place this

information, including its individual
or peculiar identifying
characteristics into the database of
integrated firearms identification
system of the PNP Crime
Laboratory for future use and
identification of a particular
firearm.

No corresponding or equivalent
provision.
SECTION 7. Unauthorized
 Issuance of Authority to Carry
Firearm and/or Ammunition
Outside of Residence. — The
penalty of prision
correccional shall be imposed
upon any person, civilian or
military, who shall issue
authority to carry firearm
and/or ammunition outside of
residence, without authority
therefor.

While it may be conceded that the phraseology in the repealed

provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866 are similar to those of Republic
Act No. 10591, there is no legislative intent to consider the latter as a mere
continuation of the former. In his sponsorship speech62 of Senate Bill No.
3397, which eventually became Republic Act No. 10591, former Senator
Gregorio B. Honasan II made no mention of Presidential Decree No. 1866
but, rather, highlighted as an objective the enactment of a new law
regulating the ownership and possession, among others, of firearms and
ammunition in the country:

It is incumbent upon us legislators, to pass a new

comprehensive law regulating the ownership, possession,
carrying, manufacture, dealing in and importation of firearms,
ammunition, or parts thereof, in order to provide legal support
to law enforcement agencies in their campaign against crime,
stop the proliferation of illegal firearms and the illegal
manufacture of firearms, ammunition and parts
thereof.63 (Emphasis supplied)

Verily, it would be an egregious error to declare that Republic Act No.

10591 originates from Presidential Decree No. 1866. Congress could very
well have provided that the former is an amendment or supplement of the
latter, but it did not. It was never its legislative intent to do so. Republic Act
No. 10591 is an entirely new law which must be read on its own. Thus, the
Court rejects the argument that violations of Republic Act No. 10591
and Republic Act No. 9516 can be lumped together in the same search
warrant because both laws originate from Presidential Decree No.
1866.

Too, it is worthy to stress that the CA's reliance on Prudente is

misplaced.

The accused in Prudente was the subject of a search warrant for

violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 and was subsequently charged
with violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the same law. The Court ruled that one
search warrant suffices to cover the violations of the different provisions of
the same statute.

Au contraire, the items sought to be retrieved from Puguon in the instant

case are covered by two separate special laws, Republic Act No. 9516
and Republic Act No. 10591. While Republic Act No. 9516 appears to be a
mere amendment of Presidential Decree No. 1866, Republic Act No. 10591
is a completely new law which supersedes Presidential Decree No. 1866
and penalizes, among others, the crime of illegal possession of firearms
and ammunition. Certainly, Prudente is not on all fours with the case at bar.

III.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the defect in Search Warrant No. 0015-

2019, the same must remain valid except as to the portion which
authorized the seizure from Puguon of two hand grenades.

In People v. Salanguit,64 the Court invalidated only a portion of a search

warrant which included items that are outside of the punishable offense
contemplated by the said search warrant:

[I]n Aday v. Superior Court, the warrant properly described two obscene
books but improperly described other articles. It was held:

Although the warrant was defective in the

respects noted, it does not follow that it was invalid
as a whole. Such a conclusion would mean that the
seizure of certain articles, even though proper if
viewed separately, must be condemned merely
because the warrant was defective with respect to
other articles. The invalid portions of the warrant
are severable from the authorization relating to the
 named books, which formed the principal basis of
the charge of obscenity. The search for and seizure
of these books, if otherwise valid, were not
rendered illegal by the defects concerning other
articles ...In so holding we do not mean to suggest
that invalid portions of a warrant will be treated as
severable under all circumstances. We recognize
the danger that warrants might be obtained which
are essentially general in character but as to minor
items meet the requirement of particularity, and that
wholesale seizures might be made under them, in
the expectation that the seizure would in any event
be upheld as to the property specified. Such an
abuse of the warrant procedure, of course, could
not be tolerated.

It would be a drastic remedy indeed if a warrant, which was issued on

probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized on the
basis thereof, is to be invalidated in toto because the judge erred in
authorizing a search for other items not supported by the evidence.
Accordingly, we hold that the first part of the search warrant, authorizing
the search of accused-appellant's house for an undetermined quantity
of shabu, is valid, even though the second part, with respect to the search
for drug paraphernalia, is not.65

Too, in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Alvarez,66 a

search warrant was issued for only one offense, i.e., violation of
Presidential Decree No. 401 which penalizes the installation of telephone
connections without previous authority from PLDT. Nonetheless, the search
warrant included in its enumeration printers, scanners, diskettes or tapes.
In upholding the validity of the warrant but invalidating some of the items
listed therein, the Court ratiocinated:

These items could not be the subject of a violation of PD

No. 401 since PLDT itself does not claim that these items
themselves comprise the unauthorized installations. For
emphasis, what PD No. 401 punishes is the unauthorized
installation of telephone connection without the previous
consent of PLDT. In the present case, PLDT has not shown
that connecting printers, scanners, diskettes or tapes to a
 computer, even if connected to a PLDT telephone line, would
or should require its prior authorization.

Neither could these items be a means of committing a

violation of PD No. 401 since these copying, printing and
storage devices in no way aided the respondents in making the
unauthorized connections. While these items may be
accessory to the computers and other equipment linked to
telephone lines, PD No. 401 does not cover this kind of items
within the scope of the prohibition. To allow the seizure of items
under the PLDT's interpretation would, as the CA correctly
observed, allow the seizure under the warrant of properties for
personal use of the respondents.67

A similar set of facts obtains in this case. The defect in Search Warrant
No. 0015-2019 pertains to the particulars in the items to be seized from
Puguon. This can be remedied by a partial, not total, invalidation of the said
warrant.

Verily, while the inclusion of the two hand grenades in the enumeration
of the items sought to be seized from Puguon was improper, it will not
automatically result in the invalidation of the entire warrant. Search Warrant
No. 0015-2019 does not per se violate the proscription against scattershot
warrants. Thus, Criminal Case No. 3901-2019, which concerns Puguon's
alleged violation of Republic Act No. 10591, stands. On the other hand,
Criminal Case No. 3902-2019, which prosecutes Puguon's alleged violation
of Republic Act No. 9516, must be ordered dismissed, pursuant to the
principle that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures
are inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is PARTIALLY

GRANTED. The Decision dated June 30, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 164326 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Search
Warrant No. 0015-2019, issued by Branch 31 of the Regional Trial Court of
Cabarroguis, Quirino, is declared VALID insofar as the evidence obtained
in relation to Criminal Case No. 3901-2019 is concerned. However,
Criminal Case No. 3902-2019 filed against petitioner Jimmy B. Puguon, Jr.,
is ordered DISMISSED and all pieces of evidence collected in relation
thereto are deemed inadmissible in any criminal or other proceeding.
SO ORDERED.