Edmund Bulauitan y Mauayan vs. People of the Philippines

A search conducted under a valid warrant is nonetheless unreasonable and the evidence seized is inadmissible if the searching officers fail to comply with the mandatory hierarchy of witnesses prescribed by Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: the search must be made in the presence of the lawful occupant or any member of his family; only upon their absence may two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality substitute, and the police have no discretion to deviate from this order of preference.

On October 3, 2003, Philippine National Police officers of Solana, Cagayan, formed a team to implement Search Warrant No. 21, issued by Executive Judge Vilma T. Pauig, on the residence of Edmund Bulauitan y Mauayan in Centro Northeast, Solana, Cagayan. The warrant authorized a search for dangerous drugs. The operation led to the reported seizure of three heat-sealed plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) with an aggregate weight of 0.22 gram, and the subsequent arrest and prosecution of Bulauitan for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

• The Search Operation: On October 3, 2003, a PNP team led by P/Insp. Kevin Bulayungan, with SPO2 Lito Baccay as search officer and PO3 Elizalde Tagal as investigator, proceeded to implement Search Warrant No. 21 at Bulauitan’s residence. Before going, they secured the presence of Barangay Kagawad Jerry Soliva and Kagawad Herald de Polonia as witnesses, upon the instruction of the Barangay Chairman.
• Entry and Search: The team arrived to find Bulauitan absent; his two children and housekeeper were present. The officers explained their purpose, and the children and housekeeper allowed them entry. SPO2 Baccay searched Bulauitan’s room and discovered three heat-sealed plastic sachets of white crystalline substance. The sachets were shown to the children and housekeeper, photographed, and handed to P/Insp. Bulayungan, then to PO3 Tagal for transport. Bulauitan arrived later, was arrested, and brought to the station. PO3 Tagal marked the sachets and delivered them to the forensic chemist, who confirmed the substance as shabu (0.22 gram total).
• The Defense’s Account: Bulauitan denied owning the sachets. He testified that on the morning in question, he and his wife were at their meat shop in Tuguegarao City. His daughter Maria called to inform him of the police search; he rushed home, was told shabu had been found in his room, and was arrested. Bulauitan claimed that Joseph Juan, the affiant in the search warrant application, harbored a grudge because Bulauitan’s wife had testified against Juan in a theft case.
• The Witness Issue—Conflicting Testimonies: A critical factual discrepancy emerged from the prosecution’s own witnesses. P/Insp. Bulayungan insisted Bulauitan was already present when the search began. PO3 Tagal, however, testified that Bulauitan was out, and that after being told this, P/Insp. Bulayungan decided to proceed with the search anyway.
• The Daughter’s Testimony: Maria Bulauitan, the accused’s daughter who was home during the search, testified that she initially resisted entry but relented when the officers insisted on the warrant. Once inside, SPO2 Baccay confirmed the location of her father’s room. SPO2 Baccay and another officer then went into the room; PO3 Tagal remained in the living room with Maria, searching belongings and asking her many questions. The door to her father’s room was left half-closed, and Maria could not see what was happening inside. PO3 Tagal then instructed her to contact her father by telephone, compelling her to leave the house and go to a neighbor’s residence to make the call. When she returned, SPO2 Baccay announced from inside the room that they had found something. Only later did Bulauitan arrive.
• The Barangay Witness Testimony: Kagawad Jerry Soliva corroborated that Bulauitan was not present, that Maria was sent out to contact her father, and that he and Kagawad de Polonia remained outside the house during the search. Soliva first saw the seized items only after the team had already taken possession of them, and he confirmed that Bulauitan had not yet arrived.

• Denial and Ulterior Motive: Bulauitan denied ownership of the seized sachets and argued that the search warrant was procured through a false affidavit motivated by a personal grudge—his wife had testified against the affiant, Joseph Juan, in a theft case.
• Illegality of the Search: Bulauitan’s appeal, though not explicitly limited to this ground, challenged the validity of the search and the conviction; the Supreme Court, pursuant to the principle that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review, addressed the search’s compliance with the witness requirement.

• Constructive Possession: The prosecution contended that Bulauitan constructively possessed the shabu because it was found inside his house, a place over which he exercised dominion and control.
• Presumption of Regularity: The RTC invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, finding no evidence to rebut it.
• Chain of Custody: The CA ruled that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized sachets.
• Proper Implementation of Search: The CA held that the search was properly implemented because it was conducted in the presence of Bulauitan’s two children and housekeeper.

• Validity of Search: Whether the search of Bulauitan’s residence complied with the mandatory witness requirement under Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and whether the seized drugs were therefore admissible in evidence.

• Validity of Search: The search was declared unreasonable and the seized shabu inadmissible. Section 8, Rule 126 prescribes a strict hierarchy of witnesses: the search must be made in the presence of the lawful occupant or any member of his family; only in their absence may two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality substitute. The police have no discretion to deviate from this order. Here, Bulauitan was absent, but his daughter Maria—a family member—was present. Instead of ensuring she witnessed the search of her father’s room, PO3 Tagal detained her in the living room with questioning and then ordered her to leave the premises to make a phone call. The room door was half-closed, and Maria saw nothing. The two barangay kagawads, summoned as substitute witnesses, remained outside the house and did not witness the search either. Thus, no person qualified under the Rule actually witnessed the search. This departure from the mandatory procedure, following People v. Go and People v. Del Castillo, tainted the search with unreasonableness. Pursuant to Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, evidence obtained from an unreasonable search is inadmissible for any purpose. The shabu—the corpus delicti—was the fruit of the poisonous tree and had to be excluded, compelling acquittal.

• Witness Hierarchy in Searches (Section 8, Rule 126): The search of a house, room, or premises under a warrant must be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant or any member of his family. Only upon their absence may two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality substitute. The police have no discretion to supplant the preferred witnesses with their own choice; preventing the lawful occupant or a family member from actually witnessing the search violates the letter and spirit of the rule, rendering the search unreasonable and the seized articles inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. (Citing People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885 (2003); People v. Del Castillo, 482 Phil. 828 (2004)).
• Exclusionary Rule: Under Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Evidence seized during a search that fails to comply with the mandatory witness rule is the fruit of a poisonous tree and must be excluded.
• Scope of Appeal in Criminal Cases: An appeal in a criminal case throws the entire case wide open for review; the appellate tribunal may correct errors, though unassigned, or even reverse the trial court’s decision on grounds other than those raised by the parties.

• "The Rules of Court clearly and explicitly establishes a hierarchy among the witnesses in whose presence the search of the premises must be conducted. Thus, Section 8, Rule 126 provides that the search should be witnessed by ‘two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality’ only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family. ... The police officers were without discretion to substitute their choice of witnesses for those prescribed by the law." — The foundational statement of the witness hierarchy, quoting People v. Go, which the Court applied to find the search of Bulauitan’s residence fatally defective.
• "The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. ... It is simply not allowed in the free society to violate a law to enforce another, especially if the law violated is the Constitution itself." — Reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy over law enforcement objectives, drawn from People v. Go.

• People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885 (2003): Controlling precedent. The Court relied on Go for the rule that the police may not prevent the lawful occupant or family member from witnessing a search and that substitution of witnesses chosen by the police violates Section 8, Rule 126, rendering the search unreasonable and the evidence inadmissible.
• People v. Del Castillo, 482 Phil. 828 (2004): Followed. Reiterated that the absence of the required witnesses during a search renders the search unreasonable and the seized items inadmissible.
• People v. Aminnudin, 246 Phil. 424 (1988): Cited for the principle that constitutional protections extend to all individuals, and law enforcement cannot disregard rights in the name of order.

• Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution: Right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures; requirement that search warrants issue only upon probable cause. The Court clarified that a valid warrant does not authorize limitless discretion in its implementation; the subsequent search must still conform to procedural safeguards.
• Section 3(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution: Exclusionary rule mandating that evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible in any proceeding. Applied to exclude the shabu from evidence.
• Section 8, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: The mandatory witness requirement for searches of houses, rooms, or premises. The search team’s failure to comply—by preventing the family member present from witnessing the search and by not ensuring the substitute witnesses actually observed the search—was found to have been violated.
• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165: The offense charged (illegal possession of dangerous drugs); although the elements were initially found by the lower courts, the exclusion of the seized drugs—the corpus delicti—rendered the conviction unsupportable.

Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Caguioa, JJ., concurred.