REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE
MANDALUYONG CITY

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,

-versus- SW-MC17-
140

ARMANDO TIMBAL Y
PALADAR alyas ARMAN,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------x

ORDER
This resolves the Application for Search Warrant filed by PCI
Dominador L. Ignacio and PO3 Aldin S. Saligo for Violation of R.A.
9165, Article II, Section 5 and 11 and R.A. 10591 for Unlawful
Acquisition or Possession of Firearm.

The factual antecedents were as follows: On or about 9:00am of

29 May 2017, while PO3 Aldin S. Saligo was on duty at Station
Intelligence Branch, a Confidential Informant told that he knew
someone named Arman who is selling illegal drugs in Blk 19-A
Martinez Street, Brgy. Addition Hills. He was immediately tasked by
PCI Ignacio to conduct surveillance and undercover operation at the
said place and on the subject. Together with the Confidential
Informant, they went as instructed to verify said information. At about
11:00am on the same day, they positioned themselves 20 meters
away from the house of the subject. After 30 minutes, three (3) men
came out from the house. Informant told that they were the ones who
were allowed to take drugs inside the house. After sometime, another
two (2) men knocked at the gate, as if calling someone inside. After a
few minutes, a man wearing a yellow sando met them. Informant
positively identified the latter as the subject. They saw how the subject
and the men at the gate consummated their transaction. Afterwhich,
he asked the informant if they could buy shabu from the subject.
Informant answered in the affirmative. They proceeded at the gate.
From the gate, the informant called Arman inside his house. When the
latter approached them, Saligo saw a handgun tucked in the subject’s
waist. Arman invited them inside his house. They went upstairs to the
third floor. He got the P500 out from his shorts' pocket and gave this
to Arman. The latter got the suspected shabu contained in small plastic
sachets and handed the same to him. He also observed some drug
paraphernalia scattered in the house. He verified the real name of the
subject as Armando Timbal y Paladar upon further inquiry from a
Barangay Tanod of Addition Hills.

At about 2:20pm, he reported to Ignacio regarding the success

of his surveillance and undercover operation. Ignacio told him to mark
the specimen. He placed “AS5/29/17” thereof. Upon further
instruction, he made proper coordination for a laboratory examination
request of the said specimen before the SOCO EPD Crime Laboratory
which gave positive result for the presence of shabu.

The Court

Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court states:

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
witness he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the things to be seized which
may be anywhere in the Philippines.

Accordingly, witnesses PCI Dominador L. Ignacio and PO3 Aldin

S. Saligo were personally examined in the form of searching
questions and answers in writing and under oath.

The allegations in the application for search warrant, together

with the documents attached thereto, and the testimonies of the
witnesses constitute the level of facts of personal knowledge to cause
issuance of search warrant. The first requisite for a valid search
warrant to issue is the existence of probable cause. Probable cause for
a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which could 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 sought to be searched. This probable cause
must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the
complainant or the witness he may produce and not based on mere
hearsay1.

Saligo indeed verified the information from the informant during

the undercover operation. In this case, the existence of probable cause
for the issuance of Search Warrant is evident from the first-hand
account of PO3 Saligo who, in his testimonies and Sworn Statement,
stated that he personally witnessed the commission of the offense and,
in fact was able to buy the subject contraband item from Arman. The
specimen as confirmed by the drug test per Report attached to their
Application is positive of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Further, the
details of their surveillance were relayed sequentially with all its
substantial details. He likewise saw the drug paraphernalia during the
1 Remedial Law, IV, Herrera, p.878
test buy operation in the third floor. The testimonies of the witnesses
especially that of Saligo vividly showed how the surveillance were
successfully conducted and without significant inconsistencies.

The Court similarly concludes that there was compliance with the
constitutional requirement that there be a particular description of "the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." Witness
Saligo described the place as: Blk 19-A Martinez Street, Brgy. Addition
Hills and sufficiently identified the same through a sketch and narrated
how they went to the said place to conduct operation. There can be no
question that the items sought to be searched are the following: more
or less thirty (30) grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride; drug
paraphernalia intended for administration of illegal drugs also known as SHABU and
unlicensed firearm hand gun or pistol which were also particularly described.
From the foregoing, finding the elements of probable cause in
the instant case, the application for search warrant is hereby
GRANTED insofar as: more or less thirty (30) grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride and drug paraphernalia intended for
administration of illegal drugs also known as SHABU are concerned.

As regards the unlicensed firearm hand gun or pistol, the same is

denied for violation of the one-specific-offense rule under Section 4,
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court as above-cited which, to note, was
intended to prevent the issuance of scattershot warrants, or those
which are issued for more than one specific offense.

SO ORDERED.

13 June 2017, Mandaluyong City.

ESTEBAN A. TACLA JR.

Executive Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE
 MANDALUYONG CITY

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,

-versus- SW-MC17-
140

ARMANDO TIMBAL Y
PALADAR alyas
ARMAN,
Respondent.
x----------------------------------x

SEARCH WARRANT

TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:

Greetings:

It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned, after

examining under oath PCI Dominador L. Ignacio and PO3 Aldin S.
Saligo that there is probable cause to believe that Violation of R.A.
9165, ART. II, Sections 5 and 11 Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 has
been committed or is about to be committed and that there are good
and sufficient reasons to believe that Armando Timbal alyas ARMAN
has in his possession or control in his house located at Blk 19-A
Martinez Street, Brgy. Addition Hills more or less thirty (30) grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride and drug paraphernalia intended for
administration of illegal drugs also known as SHABU which should be
seized and brought to the undersigned.

You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at any

time in the day/or night of the premises above described and forthwith
seize and take possession of the following personal property, to wit:

a) more or less thirty (30) grams of Methamphetamine

Hydrochloride

b) drug paraphernalia intended for administration of illegal drugs

also known as SHABU

and bring said property to the undersigned to be dealt with as the law
directs.

Witness my hand this 14th day of June 2017, at Mandaluyong

City, Philippines.
 ESTEBAN A. TACLA,
JR.
Executive Judge

[A] description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with

the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the
place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community.
Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the
place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers
unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement." 2
Search Warrant No. 09-14407 evidently complies with the foregoing

2
standard since it particularly describes the place to be searched,
namely, the three (3) caves located inside the Laud Compound in
Purok 3, Barangay Maa, Davao City:
The things to be seized were also particularly described, namely, the
remains of six (6) victims who were killed and buried in the aforesaid
premises. Laud’s posturing that human remains are not "personal
property" and, hence, could not be the subject of a search warrant
deserves scant consideration. Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
states:
SEC. 3.Personal property to be seized. – A search warrant may be issued for the
search and seizure of personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
(Emphases supplied) "Personal property" in the foregoing context actually refers
to the thing’s mobility, and not to its capacity to be owned or alienated by a
particular person. Article416 of the Civil Code, 54 which Laud himself
cites,55 states that in general, all things which can be transported from place to
place are deemed to be personal property. Considering that human remains can
generally be transported from place toplace, and considering further that they
qualify under the phrase "subject of the offense" given that they prove the
crime’s corpus delicti,56it follows that they may be valid subjects of a search
warrant under the above-cited criminal procedure provision. Neither does the
Court agree with Laud’s contention that the term "human remains" is too all-
embracing so as to subvert the particular description requirement. Asthe Court
sees it, the description points to no other than the things that bear a direct
relation to the offense committed, i.e., of Murder. It is also perceived that the
description is already specific as the circumstances would ordinarily allow given
that the buried bodies would have naturally decomposed over time. These
observations on the description’s sufficient particularity square with the Court’s
pronouncement in Bache and Co., (Phil.), Inc. v. Judge Ruiz, 57wherein it was
held:
A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized
when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily
allow(People v. Rubio, 57 Phil. 384 [1932]); or when the description expresses a
conclusion of fact — not of law — by which the warrant officer may be guided in
making the search and seizure (idem., dissent of Abad Santos, J.); or when the
things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for
which the warrant is being issued(Sec. 2, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court) x x x
If the articles desired to be seized have any direct relation to an offense
committed, the applicant must necessarily have some evidence, other than those
articles, to prove the said offense; and the articles subject of search and seizure
should come in handy merely to strengthen such evidence. (Emphases
supplied)58
Consequently, the Court finds that the particular description requirement – both
as to the place to be searched and the things to be seized – had been complied
with.
Finally, the Court finds no violation of the one-specific-offense rule under Section
4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court as above-cited which, to note, was intended to
prevent the issuance of scattershot warrants, or those which are issued for more
than one specific offense. The defective nature of scatter-shot warrants was
discussed in the case of People v. CA 59 as follows: There is no question that the
search warrant did not relate to a specific offense, in violation of the doctrine
announced in Stonehill v. Diokno and of Section 3 [now, Section 4] of Rule 126
providing as follows:
SEC. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant.— A search warrant shall not issue
but 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. Significantly, the
petitioner has not denied this defect in the search warrant and has merely said
that there was probable cause, omitting to continue that it was in connection
withone specific offense. He could not, of course, for the warrant was a scatter-
shot warrant that could refer, in Judge Dayrit’s own words, "to robbery, theft,
qualified theft or estafa." On this score alone, the search warrantwas totally null
and void and was correctly declared to be so by the very judge who had issued
it.60