PEOPLE V. DEL ROSARIO G.R. No. 109633 July 20, 1994
FACTS:
l SPO3 Raymundo Untiveros applied for a search warrant and was issued by RTC judge de Guia on the same day.
l The search warrant authorized the search and seizure of an "undetermined quantity of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as shabu and its paraphernalias" in the premises of appellant's house located at 828 R. Basa St., San Roque, Cavite City.
l SPO3 Untiveros and his team then raided the house of the accused.
l It was agreed upon that PO1 Venerando Luna will buy shabu from appellant and after his return from appellant's house, the raiding team will implement the search warrant.
l After buying the shabu, PO1 Luna came back to the headquarters and enter in the logbook the serial number of the marked money used in buying the Shabu from the accused.
l PO1 Luna with a companion proceeded to appellant's house to implement the search warrant.
l Barangay Capt. Maigue, Norma del Rosario, and appellant witnessed the search at appellant's house.
l During the raid the following items were seized:
u SPO3 de la Cruz and PO3 Francisco found a black canister containing shabu,
u An aluminum foil,
u A paltik .22 caliber atop the TV set
u Three used ammunitions in a cup and three wallets, one containing the marked money.
u SPO1 Novero found inside a show box aluminum foils, napkins, and a burner
l All the specimen submitted for laboratory analysis gave positive results for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
l The RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions and Illegal Sale of Regulated Drugs in Criminal ( 2 separate criminal cases)
ISSUE:
WON the search and arrest conducted by the police were legally done.
HELD:
NO. The operation conducted by the police is illegal.
As to the crime of illegally selling prohibited drugs, the testimony of prosecution witness PO3 Rogelio Francisco that Veneracion Luna, the alleged Poseur-buyer, bought shabu from accused-appellant was derived solely from what Luna supposedly told him and, therefore, is patently hearsay evidence, without any evidentiary weight whatsoever.
Likewise, the statements of prosecution witnesses Policemen Reynaldo de la Cruz, Raymundo Untiveros, and Eduardo Novera, Jr. as to the alleged sale of shabu are hearsay, without weight, as all of them were not present during the alleged sale.
The prosecution failed to call to the witness stand PO1 Venerando Luna, the alleged poseur-buyer. There is, thus, a total absence of evidence to establish the purported sale of shabu by accused-appellant to Venerando Luna, the supposed poseur-buyer. The omission to present the poseur-buyer casts serious doubts that an illegal sale of a dangerous drug actually took place.
Moreover, the accused-appellant cannot be convicted of possession of the shabu contained in a canister and allegedly seized at his house, for the charge against him was for selling shabu with the information alleging that the "accused, without legal authority did . . . sell to a poseur buyer an aluminum foil containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride . . ." The sale is totally different from possession. The accused-appellant cannot be convicted of a crime which is not charged in the information for to do so would deny him the due process of law.
Neither can accused-appellant be convicted of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
The search warrant implemented by the raiding party authorized only the search and seizure of ". . . the described quantity of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as shabu and its paraphernalia". Thus, the raiding party was authorized to seize only shabu and paraphernalia for the use thereof and no other.
A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a finishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime.
The Constitution itself (Section 2, Article III) and the Rules of Court (Section 3, Rule 126) specifically mandate that the search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized.
Thus, the search warrant was no authority for the police officers to seize the firearm which was not mentioned, much less described with particularity, in the search warrant. Neither may it be maintained that the gun was seized in the course of an arrest, for as earlier observed, accused-appellant's arrest was far from regular and legal. Said firearm, having been illegally seized, the same is not admissible in evidence (Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 [1967]). The Constitution expressly ordains the exclusion in evidence of illegally seized articles.
Accused is acquitted of both crimes charged against him for lack of sufficient evidence and inadmissibility of evidence.