Dabon vs. People of the Philippines

Evidence obtained in violation of Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court is inadmissible, and the failure to file a motion to quash a search warrant or suppress evidence before arraignment does not constitute a waiver of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures where the objection was raised at the earliest opportunity thereafter.

Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) operatives conducted surveillance and test-buy operations that confirmed Jorge Dabon was engaged in illegal drug activity in Tagbilaran City, Bohol.

• The Surveillance and Warrant: Law enforcement agents applied for a search warrant after surveillance and test-buy operations confirmed Dabon's illegal drug activity. Search Warrant No. 15 was issued for violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
• Execution of the Warrant: On July 26, 2003, at approximately 5:30 a.m., CIDG operatives led by Police Inspector Hermano Mallari proceeded to Dabon's two-storey apartment unit at Boal District, Tagbilaran City. They arrived at approximately 7:30 a.m. and requested Barangay Kagawad Ariel Angalot, City Councilor Jose Angalot, SK Chairman Marianne Angalot, media representative Charles Responte, and DOJ representative Zacarias Castro to witness the search.
• Search of the Premises: The group entered the house and proceeded to the second floor where Dabon and his family resided. They found Eusubio Dumaluan in the living room while Dabon was inside one of the bedrooms. After P/Insp. Mallari handed the search warrant to Dabon, the operatives searched the kitchen and found drug paraphernalia. They frisked Dumaluan and recovered from his pocket a coin purse, lighter, metal clip, three empty decks of suspected shabu, two blade pieces, and crumpled tin foil.
• The Bedroom Search: Police Officers Datoy and Enterina searched one of the bedrooms where Dabon resided. They found three plastic sachets containing suspected shabu hidden in folded clothes inside a drawer, along with various drug paraphernalia. This search was conducted in the presence of only Brgy. Kagawad Angalot. Dabon was in the living room (sala) and his wife was in the comfort room during this search; neither was allowed to witness the search of their bedroom.
• Inventory and Testing: The seized items were inventoried by SPO1 Triste in the presence of the witnesses and turned over to the crime laboratory. Chemical examination conducted by P/Insp. David Tan yielded positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Charges: Two Informations were filed against Dabon: Criminal Case No. 11931 for violation of Section 11 (possession of dangerous drugs) and Criminal Case No. 11932 for violation of Section 12 (possession of drug paraphernalia). Dumaluan was charged separately for violation of Section 12.
• Defense: Dabon testified that he was awakened by CIDG members pointing guns at him. He and Dumaluan claimed they were not allowed to witness the search and were ordered to stay in the living room while other household members were locked inside a house helper's room.

• Violation of the Two-Witness Rule: Petitioner argued that the search was invalid because it violated Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. The lawful occupants were present but were not allowed to witness the search, and only one witness was present instead of the required two.
• Inadmissibility of Evidence: Petitioner maintained that the evidence obtained during the illegal search was inadmissible under the exclusionary rule pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution.
• No Waiver of Rights: Petitioner contended that his failure to question the validity of the arrest before arraignment did not constitute a waiver of his right to question the admissibility of the evidence, as he raised the objection in his motion for reconsideration before the trial court.

• Waiver by Failure to Object: Respondent argued that Dabon's right to question his arrest was deemed waived because he failed to question the same before arraignment.
• Substantial Compliance: Respondent countered that any procedural flaw did not cast doubt on the fact that the illegal drugs and paraphernalia were seized at Dabon's residence.
• Presence of Multiple Witnesses: Respondent claimed that SK Chairman Angalot was also present to witness the search, satisfying the witness requirement.

• Compliance with Section 8, Rule 126: Whether the search conducted by the CIDG operatives complied with the mandatory requirement that it be witnessed by the lawful occupant or two witnesses residing in the same locality.
• Admissibility of Evidence: Whether the evidence obtained during the search is admissible given the alleged procedural violations.
• Waiver of Objection: Whether petitioner's failure to file a motion to quash the search warrant or suppress evidence before arraignment constitutes a waiver of his right to object thereto.

• Compliance with Section 8, Rule 126: The search violated the mandatory requirement of Section 8, Rule 126. The lawful occupants (Dabon and his wife) were actually present but were excluded from witnessing the search of their bedroom. Only one witness (Brgy. Kagawad Angalot) was present during the bedroom search, not the required two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. The hierarchy of witnesses mandated by the rule was not observed.
• Admissibility of Evidence: The evidence obtained during the unreasonable search is inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution. The exclusionary rule ensures that fundamental rights against arbitrary searches are upheld.
• Waiver of Objection: Failure to file a motion to suppress evidence before arraignment does not constitute a waiver of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Waiver must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of relevant circumstances and likely consequences. Section 14 of Rule 126 was intended only to resolve conflicting decisions on where to file such motions, not to preclude belated objections. Procedural rules cannot diminish substantive constitutional rights. Dabon raised his objection in his Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration before the trial court, which was sufficient to preserve his right.

• Section 8, Rule 126 (Two-Witness Rule) — The rule mandates that no search of a house shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant or any member of his family, or in their absence, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. This establishes a hierarchy: the lawful occupant or family member takes precedence over the two-witness requirement. The rule is mandatory to ensure regularity and prevent arbitrary conduct by implementing officers. The Court applied this to exclude evidence where the occupant was present but prevented from witnessing the search and only one witness was present.
• Exclusionary Rule — Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. This rule protects the fundamental rights to person, houses, papers, and effects against arbitrary infringement. The Court applied this to exclude the shabu and paraphernalia seized during the defective search.
• Waiver of Constitutional Rights — The standard for waiver requires that it not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. Failure to timely file a motion to suppress does not automatically constitute waiver, particularly when the objection is raised at the earliest opportunity in subsequent proceedings. The Court found no waiver despite Dabon's failure to object before arraignment because he raised the issue in his motion for reconsideration.

• "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." — Section 8, Rule 126, Rules of Court.
• "The law is mandatory to ensure the regularity in the execution of the search warrant."
• "Failure to comply with the safeguards provided by law in implementing the search warrant makes the search unreasonable. Thus, the exclusionary rule applies, i.e., any evidence obtained in violation of this constitutional mandate is inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose."
• "The standard of waiver requires that it not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences."

• People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885 (2003) — Controlling precedent establishing the hierarchy among witnesses in whose presence the search must be conducted; evidence rendered inadmissible for violation of Section 8, Rule 126.
• People v. Del Castillo, 482 Phil. 828 (2004) — Followed; held that preventing lawful occupants from witnessing the search violates the mandatory requirement even if they are present on the premises.
• Bulauitan v. People, G.R. No. 218891, September 19, 2016 — Followed; acquittal ordered due to failure to comply with Section 8, Rule 126.
• Ogayon v. People, 768 Phil. 272 (2015) — Controlling precedent clarifying that Section 14 of Rule 126 does not preclude belated objections against search warrant validity; procedural rules cannot diminish substantial rights.

• Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Article III, Section 3(2), 1987 Constitution — Provides the exclusionary rule: evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible.
• Section 8, Rule 126, Rules of Court — Mandates that searches be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant or family member, or in their absence, two witnesses from the same locality.
• Section 14, Rule 126, Rules of Court — Governs motions to quash search warrants and suppress evidence; clarified not to preclude belated objections.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Noel Gimenez Tijam.