People vs.

Punzalan
GR. No. 119087 / 774 SCRA 653
November 11, 2015

Doctrine
Search and Seizure – The law provides that a search of premises shall be conducted
in the presence of the lawful occupant or any member of his family. The
requirement of two witnesses was merely required in the absence of any lawful
occupant or any of his family member.

Facts
The Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in conducting a search in the house
of the Spouses Punzalan in Malibay, Pasay, asked the local barangay officials to come
with them as witness. But even before the barangay officials were able to arrive at the
premises of the three storey home, the police have already started the operation. The
police knocked on the door and was met by one of the spouses Punzalan. The police
conducted a search on the first floor of the three storey house, where they found
substantial amount of illegal drugs and paraphernalia. The Barangay Officials only
arrived at the house when the PDEA agents are now searching the second and third floor
of the house.
The spouses were arrested and charged with Possession of Illegal Drugs. They then
challenged the suit stating that the evidence recovered was a fruit on an illegal search.
They contend that PDEA agents did not observe the requirements by the law of two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

Issue
Whether or not there was a valid search.

Held
The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the validity of the search. The PDEA Agents were able
to fulfil the requirements by law under Section 8 of Rule 126. The Agents in the initial
stage of the search was able to conduct it in the presence of one of the spouses Punzalan
which the other half joined of the spouses joined shortly after. The law provides the
following requirement for a valid search to be made;

Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of

two witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be
made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member
of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age
and discretion residing in the same locality.

In the case at hand, there was substantial compliance based on the first paragraph. The
spouses were the lawful occupant of the premises and they are present when the first
floor was searched. The law merely provides the two witnesses when the lawful occupant
or any member of his family is absent.