Mendoza vs. People

A search warrant issued for more than one specific offense is void as a "scatter-shot warrant" in violation of the one-specific-offense rule under Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, and all evidence seized pursuant to such invalid warrant is inadmissible. The waiver of the legality of an arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest, and the plain view doctrine cannot apply where law enforcement authorities would not have been able to arrest the person were it not for the invalid search warrant.

Petitioner Joemarie Mendoza y Bucad alias "Joe" was charged with violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and violation of RA 10591, the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunitions Regulation Act. The charges arose from a search conducted by operatives of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group of the Makati City Police, who implemented Search Warrant SW-16-288-MN against a certain Jay Tan, also known as Eugene Tan/Jhay Tan, at the latter's residence. The search warrant covered violations of both RA 9165 and RA 10591, which became the central issue in the case.

On 15 April 2016 at around 10:30 p.m., operatives from the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group of the Makati City Police implemented Search Warrant SW-16-288-MN dated 13 April 2016, issued by Judge Jimmy Edmund G. Batara of Branch 72, RTC of Malabon City, against Jay Tan, also known as Eugene Tan/Jhay Tan, at the latter's residence at No. 5379, Curie Street, Barangay Palanan, Makati City, for violation of RA 9165 and Illegal Possession of Firearms. The operatives entered by breaking open the house. In a room on the ground floor, they chanced upon petitioner sitting on the floor, holding a pen gun, with one small transparent plastic sachet containing shabu and two glass pipes or improvised tooters in front of him. Petitioner was arrested and apprised of his constitutional rights. Continuing their search, the operatives found a vault, broke it open, and found guns and ammunitions of various calibers, a digital weighing scale, plastic sachets with shabu and marijuana, pieces of ecstasy and Celebrex capsules, monies of various denominations, checks, and passports in the name of one Joseph Eugene Tan y Baltonado.

PO3 Marcelo, the assigned recorder, marked the plastic sachet found in front of petitioner as "LFM-27" and the two glass pipes/improvised tooters collectively as "LFM-32," as well as other pieces of evidence found inside the vault. In the presence of Barangay Kagawad Jose Villa Jr., PO3 Marcelo conducted an inventory of the seized items and prepared an Inventory Receipt. Photographs were taken at the place of arrest. After his medical examination, petitioner was brought to the police station. PO3 Marcelo turned over the seized evidence to SPO2 Ramon Esperanzate, the assigned investigator-on-case, who prepared the pertinent documents. SPO2 Esperanzate delivered the drug specimens to Police Senior Inspector Rendielyn Sahagun, who conducted the laboratory examination of the plastic sachet, which yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Petitioner denied the charges, claiming that on 14 April 2016 at around 10:30 p.m., he was inside the house when he heard a banging on the gate. When he opened the gate, he was asked by one of the male persons about a certain "Jay." He replied that nobody by that name lived in the house. The men pushed him back, handcuffed him, and some of them forcibly went inside the house. Using an axe, they went into the room of Joseph, petitioner's brother-in-law, where they found an identification document and passport. Afterwards, petitioner was boarded on a vehicle.

During the inquest proceedings, the following documents were submitted to the City Prosecutor's Office: Final Investigation Report, Request for Laboratory Exam, Request for Drug Test, Result of the Laboratory Exam, Inventory Receipt, Chain of Custody, Mug Shot/Photo Gallery, Photocopy of Search Warrant, PDEA Spot Report, Temp. Medical Certificate, Joint Affidavit of Arrest, and Affidavit of Undertaking. In a Resolution dated 22 April 2016, Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Wilhelmina B. Go-Santiago recommended petitioner be indicted for violation of RA 10591 and Sections 11 and 12, Article II of RA 9165. Two Informations were filed before the RTC against petitioner. During arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty. The prosecution presented Kagawad Villa, PO2 Gimena, and PO3 Rojas as witnesses, and the parties stipulated on the testimonies of PO3 Marcelo and PSI Sahagun. The defense presented petitioner as the sole witness.

• Invalidity of the Search Warrant: Petitioner argued that the search warrant was in violation of the one-specific-offense rule, and as a consequence, all items seized from him should be considered inadmissible.
• Standing to Question the Search Warrant: Petitioner argued that he can question the validity of the search warrant as his rights have been impaired by the same because it is the same search warrant that the police officers used to gain access to the room where he was claimed to be found.
• Plain View Doctrine: Petitioner argued that he was not caught in flagrante delicto, and the situation in this case is contrary to the plain view doctrine.
• Conflicting Testimonies: Petitioner argued that there are conflicting testimonies in the prosecution's testimonial evidence, which are too material.
• Chain of Custody: Petitioner argued that the police officers failed to comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended.

• Questions of Fact: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the Petition raises questions of fact which are not appropriate in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
• Validity of the Search Warrant: The OSG argued that the search warrant was validly issued, and that the invalid portions of the search warrant could be severed from the valid portions.
• Standing to Question the Search Warrant: The OSG argued that the validity of the search warrant and the seizure that comes after the search are purely personal and can only be contested by Tan, to whom the search warrant was issued, and not petitioner.
• Flagrante Delicto Arrest: The OSG argued that petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto committing the offense charged.
• Chain of Custody: The OSG argued that the unbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs has been duly established.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: Whether the search warrant covering violations of both RA 9165 and RA 10591 is void for violating the one-specific-offense rule.
• Admissibility of Evidence: Whether the evidence seized pursuant to the invalid search warrant is inadmissible against petitioner, notwithstanding his waiver of the legality of his arrest.
• Plain View Doctrine: Whether the plain view doctrine applies to validate the seizure of the items found in front of petitioner.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution complied with the witness requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, to establish the corpus delicti.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: Yes. The search warrant is void for violating the one-specific-offense rule under Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, as it covered violations of both RA 9165 and RA 10591, making it a "scatter-shot warrant."
• Admissibility of Evidence: No. The evidence seized pursuant to the invalid search warrant is inadmissible. The waiver of the legality of the arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.
• Plain View Doctrine: No. The plain view doctrine is inapplicable because the police officers had no prior justification for an intrusion, as they would not have been able to arrest petitioner were it not for the invalid search warrant.
• Chain of Custody: No. The prosecution failed to comply with the witness requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, as there was no member of the media or the National Prosecution Service present during the inventory, and no explanation was offered for the non-compliance.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: The one-specific-offense rule under Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a search warrant be issued upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense. This rule is intended to prevent the issuance of a scatter-shot warrant. The Court cited Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Razon Alvarez, People vs. Pastrana, Vallejo vs. Court of Appeals, People vs. Court of Appeals, and Tambasen vs. People to demonstrate that a search warrant covering more than one offense is totally null and void. The Court rejected the OSG's argument that the invalid portions of the search warrant could be severed from the valid portions, distinguishing People vs. Salanguit, where severability referred to objectionable items in the list of objects to be seized, not to the crimes included in the search warrant. The Court reasoned that the totality of the search warrant could have led law enforcement authorities to implement it in a wholesale fashion, and the Court cannot sever the supposed "valid" portions after the fact of its implementation.

• Admissibility of Evidence: The Court held that petitioner had the right to question the validity of the search warrant as he was undoubtedly affected by the implementation thereof, citing Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Mendoza, which ruled that it is not required that a person be a party to the search warrant proceeding to question its validity. The Court reasoned that the intrusion of law enforcement agents in the room where they found petitioner would not have been possible were it not for the search warrant which lent apparent authority to be in the searched premises. Thus, the validity of the search warrant is intimately linked to the arrest of petitioner and the seizure of the items used against him. Citing Dominguez vs. People and Homar vs. People, the Court reiterated that while the validity of the arrest may be waived if not raised before arraignment, such waiver only affects the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused but does not carry a waiver of the admissibility of evidence. Since the search warrant is invalid, the evidence obtained pursuant thereto are inadmissible.

• Plain View Doctrine: The Court enumerated the requisites for the plain view doctrine: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The Court found that the police officers had no prior justification for an intrusion nor were they in a position from which they could view the area where petitioner was supposedly caught in flagrante delicto, because were it not for the authority claimed under the invalid search warrant, petitioner would not have been seen committing the crimes charged against him.

• Chain of Custody: The Court cited Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, which requires that the physical inventory and photography of the seized items be conducted in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The Court found that there was no member of the media or the National Prosecution Service present during the inventory. Citing David vs. People, the Court held that the presence of these witnesses is required primarily to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. While jurisprudence recognizes that the chain of custody is not an inflexible rule, any deviations must be sufficiently explained. In this case, there was no explanation for the non-observance of the requirements of the law, and considering that the law enforcement had ample time to coordinate said witnesses given that they had time to apply for a search warrant, the Court declared the corpus delicti of the crimes charged as not having been established, warranting the acquittal of petitioner.

• One-Specific-Offense Rule — A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense. The rule is intended to prevent the issuance of a scatter-shot warrant, reinforcing the constitutional requirement that a search warrant should issue only on the basis of probable cause. A search warrant covering more than one offense is totally null and void, and the Court cannot sever the supposed "valid" portions of the search warrant after the fact of its implementation.

• Waiver of Arrest vs. Waiver of Admissibility — A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest only affects the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused and does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. An accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move to quash the information before arraignment, but this does not cure the inadmissibility of evidence seized pursuant to an invalid search warrant.

• Plain View Doctrine — The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The doctrine is inapplicable where law enforcement authorities would not have been able to arrest the person were it not for the invalid search warrant.

• Chain of Custody Rule — Under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, the physical inventory and photography of seized items must be conducted in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. Non-compliance may be permitted only if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. Mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.

• "The one-specific-offense requirement reinforces the constitutional requirement that a search warrant should issue only on the basis of probable cause." — This passage from Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Razon Alvarez, quoted by the Court, articulates the rationale behind the one-specific-offense rule and its connection to the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

• "However, this waiver to question an illegal arrest only affects the jurisdiction of the court over his person. It is well-settled that a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest." — This passage from Homar vs. People, quoted by the Court, establishes the distinction between waiving the legality of an arrest and waiving the admissibility of evidence seized during an illegal arrest.

• "The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily 'to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.'" — This passage from David vs. People, quoted by the Court, explains the purpose of the witness requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended.

• "While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance." — This passage articulates the standard for justifying non-compliance with the chain of custody witness requirements, requiring proof of genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of witnesses.

• Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Razon Alvarez, 728 Phil. 391 (2014) — Controlling precedent on the one-specific-offense rule, explaining that the rule prevents the issuance of a scatter-shot warrant and reinforces the constitutional requirement that a search warrant should issue only on the basis of probable cause.

• People vs. Pastrana, 826 Phil. 427 (2018) — Followed, reiterating that a search warrant must be issued based on probable cause in connection with one specific offense, and defining when an offense may be said to necessarily include another.

• Vallejo vs. Court of Appeals, 471 Phil. 670 (2004) — Followed, invalidating a search warrant for having been issued for more than one offense, describing it as a scatter-shot warrant.

• People vs. Court of Appeals, 290 Phil. 528 (1992) — Followed, ruling that a search warrant that did not relate to a specific offense was totally null and void.

• Tambasen vs. People, 316 Phil. 237 (1995) — Followed, ruling that a search warrant covering violations of two special laws was a scatter-shot warrant and totally null and void.

• People vs. Salanguit, 408 Phil. 817 (2001) — Distinguished, as the severability allowed therein referred to objectionable items in the list of objects to be seized, not to the crimes included in the search warrant.

• Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Mendoza, 686 Phil. 308 (2012) — Followed, ruling that it is not required that a person be a party to the search warrant proceeding to question its validity, and that the issuing court is the right forum for a motion to suppress.

• Dominguez vs. People, G.R. No. 235898, 13 March 2019 — Followed, establishing that a waiver of the legality of an arrest only affects the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused but does not carry a waiver of the admissibility of evidence.

• Homar vs. People — Followed, cited for the proposition that a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.

• David vs. People, G.R. No. 253336, 10 May 2021 — Followed, explaining the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, and the standard for justifying non-compliance.

• People vs. Acosta, G.R. No. 238865, 28 January 2019 — Cited for the requisites of the plain view doctrine.

• People vs. Lagman, 593 Phil. 617 (2008) — Cited in People vs. Acosta for the requisites of the plain view doctrine.

• Lapi vs. People, G.R. No. 210731, 13 February 2019 — Cited for the proposition that in criminal cases, the entire case is thrown open for the Court to review in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

• Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution — The constitutional right of persons against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The Court applied this provision in determining that the search warrant covering two offenses violated the constitutional requirement.

• Section 4, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — The requisites for issuing a search warrant, requiring probable cause in connection with one specific offense. The Court applied this rule in declaring the search warrant void for covering violations of both RA 9165 and RA 10591.

• Sections 11 and 12, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, penalizing illegal possession of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. Petitioner was charged with and convicted of these offenses, but the conviction was reversed on appeal.

• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by RA 10640 — The custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, requiring that the physical inventory and photography of seized items be conducted in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The Court applied this provision in finding that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti.

• Republic Act No. 10591 — The Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunitions Regulation Act, one of the offenses covered by the search warrant in this case, which contributed to the warrant's invalidity for violating the one-specific-offense rule.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concurred. Hernando, J., was on wellness leave.