Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 213875

    Uploaded by

    Ez Money
    13 views12 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 views12 pages

    213875

    Uploaded by

    Ez Money

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 12
    © Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Mamita SECOND DIVISION MERLINAR. DIAZ, G.R.No, 213875 Petitioner, —_ PERLAS-BERNABE, J, ‘Chairperson, HERNANDO, = versus ~ INTING, DELOS SANTOS, and GAERLAN, Promulgated: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ‘Respondent. 15 JO 2020 DECISION HERNANDO, J. “This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the May 12, 2014 Decision® and August 11, 2014 Resolution? ofthe Court af Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. SPNo. 132942. The CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorar* under Rule 65 ofthe Rules of Cour, assailing the July 16, 2013° and September 20, 2013* Orders of Judge Francisca D. Pao ofthe Regional Tial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 93, which denied the Motion to Quash Search Warrant” and Motion “Peg iia ir th Seo sn et esl re 7 hy 1 ‘scsi N- lamnts nd he. diate ne 2 panty a eo Di ot, for Reconsideration,* respectively, filed by petitioner Merlina R. Diz. in Criminal Case No. 12-8358-SPL. Factual Antecedents On April 27, 2012, on the basis of the application filed by and ‘examination under oath of applicant Police Officer 2 Pio P. Avila (PO2 Avila), RIC Judge Agripino Monga, Presiding Judge of San Pablo City, Branch 32, issued Search Warrant No. 97 (12)? which read, in pat, a follows: 1k appearing to the saisfaction of the undersigned hat afer ‘xamining under oath by searching questions and answers PO2 Po Pevro ‘vila, there exits probable cate for Voton of RA 9165 wich has teen commits and there sa good sufficient reason to Believe that MERLY DIAZ (a) Merly Palayok has possession and contol of undermined mount of Methamphetamine Hydrocoride commonly kaown haba ‘shih se} i keeping and eonceaing in [er ouse at Gita, Bry. Cash, San Pedro Laguns, ‘You are therefore hereby commanded to make an immediate search anytime ofthe day of anytine of the nigh the hous afrestted ant ‘hereater size and ring sid undetemnined amount of Proitited Drvgs (habu) wo the undersigned so tht the sae could be dealt wit in ‘sccordane with In support of PO2 Avile’s application, an informant, a certain Jericho S. Labrador (Labrador) submitted to Judge Morga two aketches of the house of petitioner in Gitna, Bray. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna. The frst sketch'® of Labrador depicted a floor plan of a stdio-type apartment with an anteroom where the entrance gate of the property was located. The second sketch!” depicted three buildings along Gitna, ane of which was marked witha lange "=X" enclosed in a square that supposedly identified petitioner's house? Pursuant othe search warrant, members of the San Pedro Police Station searched the house of petitioner. Approximately nine grams of shabu were then found in and seized from the premises. Petitioner was immediately arrested and detained by the members of the searching team for her alleged violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), or the ‘Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." Immediately afer the search and petitioner's amest, the following information was uncovered from petitioner (1) thatthe complete addess of her residence is No. 972, Gitna, Brey. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna; and (2) that the house located at No. 972, Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna was divided into five separete units each oocupied by petitioner and her four siblings, namely, Nomer (Leomer) R. Diaz, Edwin R. Diaz, Fordeliza R. Diaz, and Leonora Diaz Nesola (Leonora), and their respective families," ‘Thereafter, on May 2, 2012, Inquest Proceedings were conducted by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Clarence R, Gaite, On the same day, an Information for Violation of Section Il of R.A. No. 9165, docketed as Criminel Case No. 12-8358-SPL, was filed before the RIC of San Pablo City, Laguna, Branch 93, against petitioner" (On May 22, 2012, petitioner flled before the RTC of San Pablo City, Laguna, Branch 32, a Motion to Quash Search Wartant No. 97 (12)"on the {round that the same was in the nature af a general warrant which filed to describe with particularity the place to be searched. Particularly, petitioner averred in her motion that (a) house number 972 did not appear in her home address as stated in the search warrant; and (b) the search warrant failed to distinguish petitioners unit, which was the lace intended to be searched, rom the other units or rooms representing the four other households inside the house located in Gitna, Bray. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna. ‘On May 25, 2012, the RTC of San Pablo City, Laguna, Branch 32, issued an Order!” forwarding the motion to the RTC of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 93, for resolution, (On March 1,2013, the prosecution filed its objection" to the Motion to ‘Quash avorring that the search warraat is preswined regular unless and Unt Petitioner presents evidence to prove otherwise. Ruling of the Regional Trial Court In an Order dated July 16, 2013, the RTC of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 93, denied pettioner’s motion for lack of merit considering thatthe Aeseription of the place as stated inthe search warrant was sufficient, hus Acting onthe Motion 19 Quash filed by accused through counsel ‘withthe ebjcton thereto by the pubis prosecutor, the Cou esaves to deny the said motion or ute lack of merit. The Court finds the deserption ofthe place as sated in the Wana wflent the officer With waral ‘wit reasonable effort, ascertain and enti the place Incnded tbe searched ‘SO ORDERED, Desivon 4 GR. No. 213895 ‘The Motion for Reconsideration” filed by petitioner was denied by the RTC iin its September 20, 2013 Order.** Unconvinced, petitioner filed a Petition for Certionaré? before the CA. Ruling of the Court of Appeals Petitioner reiterated in her Petition for Certiorari the issues and arguments previously raised and passed upon by the RTC. Thus, in ite May 12, 2014 Decision, the CA dismissed the Petition and ruled that the search ‘warrant did not partake of the nature of a general warrant as it sufficiently described with particularity the place to be searched stated therein. The CA, ‘explained that the police officers who served the warrant and conducted the search of petitioners residence were able to identity the building where she actually resided notwithstanding the fact that the search warrant did not specifically indicate house number 972, Petitioner sought reconsideration of the CAs May 12, 2014 Decision ‘ofthe CA, which was, however, denied by the appellate cout in its August (1, 2014 Resolution Issues, Undeterred, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on Cortiorar#® raising te following assignment of errs: ‘A. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT SEARCH WARRANT NO. 97 (12) IS VALID AND [DOES] NOT CONSTITUTE A GENERAL WARRANTL] 'B THE COURT OF APPEALS BRRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE ACTS OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT IN DENYING PETITIONER'S, MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT NO. 97 (12) AND DENYING HER MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DO NOT CONSTITUTE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO TACK OF JURISDICTION] C. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR CERTIORAR™ Plainly, the threshold issue for resolution is whether Search Warrant No 97 (12) is a general warrant for filing to deseribe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity Decision s GR No.213875 Our Ruling ‘We deny the Petition, ‘The requirements ofa valid search warrant are laid down in Arce Il, Section 2 ofthe 1987 Constitution” and in Rule 126, Section 4 of the Rules Court, viz: “(1) probable cause is present (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he ot she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally ‘known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched andthe things to be seized.” The absence of any of these requisites will cause the downright nulitication of the search warrant” There is no question thatthe search warrant was issued after judicial

    You might also like