Merlina Diaz vs People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 213875 July 15, 2020

Facts:

On April 27, 2012, a search warrant was issued by Judge Agripino Morga of RTC Branch 32, San
Pablo City filed by PO2 Avila. In support with the application, 2 sketches of the house of the petitioner
was submitted. The first was a floor plan of a studio type apartment and the second sketch depicted
three buildings one of which is marked X indicating petitioner’s house

The house was search and approximately nine grams of shabu were found and seized. Petitioner
was arrested and detained for alleged violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9135. After the search and arrest, it
was uncovered the complete address of petitioner’s residence and the house was divided into five units
occupied by petitioner and four siblings.

May 2, 2012, Inquest proceeding was conducted and on the same day, an Information for
violation of Section 11, of R.A. 9165 was filed before RTC of San Pablo City, Branch 69.

May 22, petitioner filed before the RTC of San Pablo, Branch 22, a Motion to Quash on the
ground that the same was in nature of a general warrant which failed to describe with particularity the
place to be searched. Petitioner averred in her motion that her house number was not in the search
warrant and it failed to distinguish petitioner’s unit intended for the search.

On may 25, 2012, an Order was issued by RTC Branch 32 forwarding the Motion to RTC Branch
93, for resolution. March 1, 2013, the prosecutor filed its objection to the Motion to Quash averring that
the warrant is presumed regular unless and until petitioner presents evidence to prove otherwise.

Ruling of the RTC:

July 16, 2013, RTC Branch 93, denied petitioner’s motion for lack of merit and the Motion for
Reconsideration was denied in its September 30, 2013 Order. Unconvinced, petitioner filed a Petition
for Certiorari before the CA.

Ruling of CA:

On May 12, 2014, the CA dismissed the petition and ruled that the search warrant did not
partake of the nature of a general warrant as it sufficiently describe the place to be searched. It also
explained that the police were able to identify the building where she actually resided. Petitioner
sought reconsideration however it was denied in its August 11, 2014 Resolution.

Issue:

WoN Search Warrant No. 97 is a general warrant for failing to describe the place to be searched
with sufficient particularity

Ruling:

The petition is denied. The requirements of a valid search warrant are laid down in Article III,
Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 126, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, viz.: (1) probable cause
is present; (2) probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) applicant and the witness
testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be
searched and the things to be seized.

There is no question that the search warrant was issued after a judicial determination of
probable cause. It is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that a description of a place to be search is
sufficient if the officer with the warrant can ascertain and identify the place and distinguish it from other
places in the community. The court finds that the omission of the warrant to (a) indicated the place to
be searched contained five rooms which were separately occupied; and (b) confine the search to
petitioner’s unit is inconsequential and does not affect the warrant’s validity for the following reasons:

(1) The units where petitioner and her siblings lived all form an integral part of the house, which
was sufficiently described with particularity under warrant.
(2) Even Assuming the ambiguity in the interior description of the place to be searched, such
finding, which only emerged after the warrant was issued, has no bearing on its validity or
invalidity.

It has been held that the requirement of particularity as to the things to be seized does not
require technical accuracy in the description of the property to be seized. The same principle must be
held in the case at bench. It would be unreasonable to expect PO2 Avila, or an informant, to have
existence knowledge of the interior set-up or floor plan of petitioner’s house.

Wherefore, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is denied. The decision and resolution of the
CA, respectively, is affirmed.