DEL ROSARIO vs.

PEOPLE
G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001, 358 SCRA 373
Petitioner: VICENTE DEL ROSARIO y NICOLAS
Respondent: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS
Accused-appellant Vicente del Rosario was found guilty of violation of P. D. No. 1866 of the Regional
Trial
Court of Malolos. Allegedly, sometime in May 1996, the police received a report that accused-appellant
Vicente del Rosario was in possession of certain firearms without the necessary licenses. Acting upon
the
report, the PNP Criminal Investigation Group inquired from the PNP Firearms and Explosive Division
whether
or not the report was true. The PNP Firearms and Explosives Division issued a certification stating that
per
records in his office, the appellant is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber.
Armed
with the said certification the police applied for a search warrant to enable them to search the house of
appellant. Upon the issuance of the warrant, a team led by P/Sr. Insp. Adique went to Norzagaray to
serve
the warrant. Before proceeding to the residence of the appellant, the police officers requested Barangay
Chairman Rogelio de Silva and Barangay Councilman Aurelio Panteleon to accompany them in the
implementation of the warrant. Upon arrival at the house of appellant, the police officers introduced
themselves to the wife of appellant. When the appellant came out, P/Sr. Insp. Adique informed him that
they
had a search warrant and that they were authorized to search his house. After appellant gave his
permission,
the police officers conducted a search of the house. The search yielded the following items: (a) a
caliber .45
pistol with Serial No. 703792 with five magazines of caliber .45 (Exhibits B and H) found at the master's
bedroom; (b) five magazines of 5.56 M-16 rifle and two radios (Exhibits C to C-4)found in the room of
appellant's daughter; and (c) a caliber .22 revolver with Serial No. 48673 (Exhibit F) containing 8 pieces
of live
ammunition (Exhibit M) found in the kitchen of the house. When asked about his license to possess the
firearms, the appellant failed to produce any. This prompted the police officers to seize the subject
firearms.
For his defense, appellant contends that he had a license for the caliber .45 pistol recovered in his
bedroom
and that the other items seized during the search including the caliber .22 revolver, were merely planted
by
the police officers. Appellant likewise assails the manner in which the search was carried out, claiming
that
the police officers just barged into his house without asking permission. Furthermore, he claimed that
the
barangay officials arrived only after the police already had finished the search. However, after trial the
trial
court rendered a judgment of conviction which decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether or not the seizure of items not mentioned in the search warrant was illegal.
HELD
The Supreme Court REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITS petitioner Vicente del
Rosario y Nicolas of the charge of violation of P. D. No. 1866.Seizure is limited to those items particularly
described in a valid search warrant. Searching officers are without discretion regarding what articles
they shall seize. Evidence seized on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted
and excluded for being the proverbial "fruit of a poisonous tree." In the language of the fundamental
law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. In this case, the firearm was
not found inadvertently and in plain view. It was found as a result of a meticulous search in the kitchen
of petitioner's house. This firearm, to emphasize, was not mentioned in the search warrant. Thus, the
seizure is illegal. True that as an exception, the police may seize without warrant illegally possessed
firearm or any contraband for that matter, inadvertently found in plain view. However, "[t]he seizure of
evidence in 'plain view' applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the
accused, but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object."
Specifically, seizure of evidence in "plain view" is justified when there is:(a) a prior valid intrusion based
on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they
are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search.
Papa vs. Mago [GR L-27360, 28 February 1968]
FACTS:
Martin Alagao, head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police Department, acting upon a
reliable information received to the effect that a certain shipment of personal effects, allegedly
misdeclared and undervalued, would be released the following day from the customs zone of the port
of Manila and loaded on two trucks, and upon orders of Ricardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and
a duly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs, conducted surveillance at gate 1 of the customs
zone. When the trucks left gate 1 at about 4:30 p.m. of 4 November 1966, elements of the counter
intelligence unit went after the trucks and intercepted them at the Agrifina Circle, Ermita, Manila. The
load of the two trucks, consisting of nine bales of goods, and the two trucks, were seized on instructions
of the Chief of Police. Upon investigation, a person claimed ownership of the goods and showed to
the policemen a “Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected on Informal Entry No. 147-5501”, issued
by the Bureau of Customs in the name of a certain Bienvenido Naguit. Claiming to have been
prejudiced by the seizure and detention of the two trucks and their cargo, Remedios Mago and
Valentin B. Lanopa filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila a petition “for mandamus with
restraining order or preliminary injunction (Civil Case 67496), praying for the issuance of a restraining
order, ex parte, enjoining the police and customs authorities, or their agents, from opening the bales
and examining the goods, and a writ of mandamus for the return of the goods and the trucks, as well
as a judgment for actual, moral and exemplary damages in their favor. Mago filed an amended
petition, including as party defendants Collector of Customs Pedro Pacis of the Port of Manila and Lt.
Martin Alagao of the Manila Police Department. On 7 March 1967, the Judge issued an order releasing
the goods to Mago upon her filing of a bond in the amount of P40,000.00. On 13 March 1967, Papa, on
his own behalf, filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the court releasing the goods under
bond, upon the ground that the Manila Police Department had been directed by the Collector of
Customs of the Port of Manila to hold the goods pending termination of the seizure proceedings.
Without waiting for the court’s action on the motion for reconsideration, and alleging that they had no
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, Papa, et. al. filed the action for
prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
WON the custom search requires a warrant.
HELD:
The SC held that the TARRIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE explicitly does not require warrants for custom
officers to board and search vessels, beasts, or persons suspected of introducing contraband
merchandise into the PH. In this case, the PNP Chief, having been deputized by the Commissioner of
Customs, is, thus authorized to carry out such searches. However, the SC held that the search of
dwelling houses, even for the enforcement of Customs Laws, requires warrant.
The SC recognized that jurisprudence has held that there is a difference between a) a search of a
dwelling of a house and b) a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile for contraband goods,
where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can quickly escape. Thus, search
of motor vehicle is likewise valid without search warrant.