People vs. Dichoso

Under the Dangerous Drugs Act, a single search warrant may validly issue for multiple related offenses involving different dangerous drugs and paraphernalia because they belong to the same species of criminal activity penalized by the same special law; a seizure receipt containing an accused’s uncounselled admission of ownership, signed while in custody, is an inadmissible extrajudicial confession under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution; unlawful possession of a dangerous drug is a lesser offense necessarily included in a charge of unlawful sale thereof, and a conviction for possession may be entered when the sale is not sufficiently proved by unequivocal positive evidence, provided possession is established beyond reasonable doubt.

NARCOM agents of the 4th Regional Unit stationed in San Pablo City applied for and obtained Search Warrant No. 028 from the Regional Trial Court on 22 February 1991, alleging that spouses Redentor and Sonia Dichoso were illegally keeping, using, and selling shabu and marijuana in their residence at Farconville Subdivision, Phase II, San Pablo City. The warrant directed a search of the nipa hut within the Dichoso compound for dried marijuana leaves, methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), and drug paraphernalia. The ensuing search on 23 February 1991 resulted in the seizure of substantial quantities of suspected shabu and marijuana, a notebook bearing names and figures, and a small amount of shabu from a companion of Dichoso. Prosecutions were initiated charging Dichoso with unlawful sale of shabu and marijuana under Sections 15 and 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, while his spouse Sonia could not be arrested and his co-accused Jaime Pagtakhan was separately charged with illegal possession.

• The Search Warrant and Its Execution: On 22 February 1991, the 4th Regional Narcotics Command applied for a search warrant against the spouses Dichoso, alleging illegal possession of an undetermined quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), dried marijuana leaves, and drug paraphernalia stored in a nipa hut within their residential compound at Farconville Subdivision, Phase II, San Pablo City. Search Warrant No. 028 was issued by Judge J. Ausberto B. Jaramillo, Jr. the same day. On 23 February 1991, at about 2:00 p.m., a NARCOM team led by T/Sgt. Iluminado Evangelista proceeded to the premises. An old man met the team at the gate, was told of the search warrant, and opened the compound. He led the agents to a nipa hut where Redentor Dichoso, Jaime Pagtakhan, and two other persons were seated around a small table on which suspected shabu and drug paraphernalia were visible. The agents identified themselves, served a copy of the warrant on Dichoso, and sent for the barangay chairman. Barangay Captain Francisco Calabia arrived 15 to 20 minutes later, was shown the warrant, and explained its contents to Dichoso.

• Items Seized: In the ensuing search of the nipa hut, Evangelista discovered inside a cabinet: approximately 200 grams of suspected marijuana wrapped in plastic, six decks of suspected shabu wrapped in aluminum foil, and a brown “Golden Gate” notebook (Exhibit “F”) containing lists of names and figures. From Pagtakhan’s right hand, a small quantity of suspected shabu was recovered. The search of the main house yielded no contraband. The seized items were collected, marked, and placed in a plastic bag.

• Documents Prepared and Signed: CIC Rolando Bisenio prepared three documents at the scene: Exhibit “B” (a Pagpapatunay attesting to the results of the search listing the confiscated items); Exhibit “C” (a Pagpapatunay attesting to the lawful manner of the search); and Exhibit “D” (Receipt for Property Seized). Barangay Captain Calabia read them and explained their contents to Dichoso and Pagtakhan, after which both signed. In Exhibit “B,” the words “MAY-ARI” appeared below Dichoso’s name; in Exhibit “C,” “MAY-ARI BAHAY”; in Exhibit “D,” the word “OWNER” was printed below the sub-heading “COPY OF THE RECEIPT RECEIVED.” Dichoso was given copies of the three documents.

• Post-Search Events: Dichoso, Pagtakhan, and the two other individuals were brought to the NARCOM office. The two others, identified as “Jun” and Bayani Salamat, were released after investigators determined they were visitors. On the evening of 23 February 1991, Dichoso and Pagtakhan executed waivers under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code with the assistance of counsel. A return of the search warrant and an inventory were made on 25 February 1991. On 26 February 1991, the seized specimens were delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory; P/Major Rosalinda L. Royales, Forensic Chemist, confirmed that the substances tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and marijuana.

• Defense Evidence: Dichoso denied the charges and claimed a frame-up. He alleged that “Jun,” one of his companions, placed the shabu on the table after asking to use it, then stepped out, met the NARCOM team, and never returned. He further claimed that he and Pagtakhan were immediately handcuffed while Salamat was not and was later released. Barangay Captain Calabia testified that when he arrived, the seized articles were already on the table and Dichoso was already handcuffed; Calabia also executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay denouncing the veracity of Exhibits “B,” “C,” and “D” and his signatures on them. Dichoso maintained that the nipa hut belonged to his brother Abner and that he did not own the property.

• Invalidity of the Search Warrant: Appellant Redentor Dichoso argued that Search Warrant No. 028 was a general warrant because it was captioned merely “Violation of RA 6425” without specifying the particular section violated. He further contended that the warrant was issued for more than one specific offense—illegal possession of shabu, illegal possession of marijuana, and illegal possession of paraphernalia—in violation of Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and the constitutional requirement of particularity, thus rendering the seized items inadmissible under Stonehill v. Diokno.

• Frame‑Up and Planted Evidence: Appellant maintained that the deck of shabu found on the table was placed there by “Jun,” who then left the hut and alerted the NARCOM agents. He pointed to the testimony of Barangay Captain Calabia that the search was conducted before his arrival, the seized items were already on the table when he came, and Dichoso was handcuffed, all of which supported the claim of planted evidence.

• Inadmissibility of Exhibits “B,” “C,” and “D”: Appellant contended that these documents, which he signed while under police custody, contained admissions of ownership (“MAY-ARI,” “MAY-ARI BAHAY,” “OWNER”) and therefore constituted uncounselled extrajudicial confessions taken in violation of his rights to remain silent and to counsel under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

• Insufficiency of Evidence of Sale: Appellant argued that he was never caught in flagrante selling, delivering, or distributing shabu or marijuana. He claimed that Exhibit “F” (the notebook) could not prove sale because the entries were not shown to refer to drug transactions, the names “Redy Dichoso” and “Sonia Dichoso” were written by the NARCOM agent, and the notebook was not among the items specifically described in the search warrant. He also characterized the seized quantity as not “considerable,” especially given his admission of occasional use.

• Illegality of Search Due to Ownership: Appellant asserted that the nipa hut and the lot belonged to his brother Abner Dichoso, making the search unconstitutional and the items seized inadmissible against him.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the warrant was not a general warrant because the body specified the place, the items, and the fact of illegal possession of shabu, marijuana, and paraphernalia. Relying on Olaes v. People and Prudente v. Dayrit, the People argued that a single search warrant may be issued for multiple related violations of the same special law, as the offenses belong to the same species.

• No Frame‑Up: Respondent argued that the defense of frame-up requires strong and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that law enforcement officers performed their duties regularly; Dichoso failed to present such proof, and his claim only concerned one deck of shabu without explaining the rest of the seized items.

• Documents Are Mere Inventories and Receipts: The Solicitor General maintained that Exhibits “B,” “C,” and “D” were simply inventories and receipts of the property seized, not extrajudicial confessions, and that the trial court did not rely on them as confessions but as proof of the items recovered, which was independently established by the NARCOM agents’ testimonies.

• Evidence of Sale Sufficient: The People pointed to the considerable quantity of shabu and marijuana seized, the notebook’s contents as a customer list, and the ruling in People v. Toledo that possession of a sizeable amount of prohibited drugs coupled with the fact that the accused was not proven to be a user indicates intent to sell; they further cited People v. Claudio to show that Section 4 penalizes not only sale but also transportation and distribution.

• Control Over the Premises: Respondent argued that the search was valid because the nipa hut was under Dichoso’s control and use, as he admitted using it as a resting place and the defense witness testified that he and his spouse resided there.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: Whether Search Warrant No. 028 is a general warrant or was issued for more than one specific offense in violation of the Constitution and Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.

• Defense of Frame‑Up: Whether the appellant was framed by the NARCOM operatives.

• Admissibility of Seizure Documents: Whether Exhibits “B,” “C,” and “D,” signed without the assistance of counsel, are inadmissible uncounselled extrajudicial confessions.

• Seizure of the Notebook: Whether the notebook (Exhibit “F”) may be admitted in evidence even though it was not listed in the search warrant.

• Proof of Unlawful Sale: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant unlawfully sold, delivered, and distributed shabu and marijuana.

• Ownership of Searched Premises: Whether the search was illegal because the appellant does not own the nipa hut searched.

• Proper Offense: Whether the appellant may be convicted of illegal possession of shabu and marijuana as offenses necessarily included in the charges of unlawful sale.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: The search warrant was valid. The body of the warrant controlled; it particularized the place to be searched (the nipa hut within the Dichoso compound) and the items to be seized (marijuana leaves, shabu, and sets of paraphernalia), and it indicated that the offense involved was illegal possession of those articles. The contention that the warrant was issued for more than one offense was rejected. Because the Dangerous Drugs Act is a special law penalizing closely related offenses of the same species—illegal possession of prohibited drugs, regulated drugs, and drug paraphernalia—a single search warrant could validly cover all such violations. This interpretation is consistent with Olaes v. People and Prudente v. Dayrit. No fatal infirmity attached to the warrant.

• Defense of Frame‑Up: The claim of frame‑up was dismissed. Appellant failed to provide strong and convincing evidence necessary to overcome the presumption that the NARCOM agents acted in the regular performance of their duties. He did not attribute any improper motive to the officers, and his frame‑up theory only addressed one deck of shabu attributed to “Jun,” without accounting for the other drugs and paraphernalia seized. The defense of frame‑up is easily fabricated and is commonly invoked in drugs cases, and in this instance it carried no weight.

• Admissibility of Seizure Documents: The documents Exhibits “B,” “C,” and “D” were inadmissible as extrajudicial confessions. Although not used as confessions by the trial court, the notations “MAY-ARI,” “MAY-ARI BAHAY,” and “OWNER” inscribed near or below the appellant’s signature while he was in effective custody and without the assistance of counsel constituted an elicited admission of ownership, thereby circumventing the constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. The preparation of these exhibits substituted for custodial interrogation. Nevertheless, the inadmissibility did not affect the conviction because the seizure of the drugs and paraphernalia was adequately established through the independent oral testimony of the NARCOM agents.

• Seizure of the Notebook: The plain view doctrine could not justify the seizure of Exhibit “F.” The search warrant was for illegal possession, not for unlawful sale, and the notebook per se was not contraband or an article whose possession is illegal. Even if it were admissible, its contents were not properly authenticated: no handwriting expert or witness familiar with the appellant’s handwriting was presented, and there was no competent proof that the entries referred to drug transactions or prices. Hence, Exhibit “F” could not serve as proof of sale or possession.

• Proof of Unlawful Sale: The prosecution failed to prove the unlawful sale of shabu and marijuana beyond reasonable doubt. No witness—not even the civilian informer whose prior buy‑bust allegedly prompted the search warrant—testified to having seen the appellant sell or deliver drugs to anyone. The sale must be established by unequivocal and positive evidence. The trial court’s reliance on Exhibit “F” as a customer list was based on conjecture, not proof. The quantity of drugs, while indicative, was insufficient by itself to prove the act of selling; the ruling in People v. Toledo was inapposite because that case rested on a valid extrajudicial confession detailing the accused’s drug‑pushing activities, not merely on the amount of drugs seized.

• Ownership of Searched Premises: The argument was unmeritorious. It is not necessary that the property searched be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is issued; it suffices that it is under his control or possession. By his own admission, the appellant and his family had been using the nipa hut as a resting place, and the defense witness Calabia testified that the spouses resided there. The search was therefore constitutional and the items seized were admissible against him.

• Proper Offense: The appellant could properly be convicted of the lesser offenses necessarily included in the charges. Illegal possession of shabu under Section 16, Article III, is necessarily included in a charge of unlawful sale of shabu under Section 15, Article III; similarly, illegal possession of marijuana under Section 8, Article II, is necessarily included in a charge of unlawful sale of marijuana under Section 4, Article II. The evidence overwhelmingly established that the shabu and marijuana were found in the nipa hut under the appellant’s control. His admission that he sometimes used shabu did not insulate him: occasional use is not “drug dependence,” and he never voluntarily submitted for rehabilitation as required by Section 30 to avoid criminal liability. The admission of use only reinforced the finding of possession.

• Single Warrant for Related Dangerous Drug Offenses — A search warrant issued for “Violation of RA 6425” is not a general warrant if its body specifies the place, the items to be seized, and the offense (illegal possession of identified dangerous drugs and paraphernalia). Because the Dangerous Drugs Act is a special law whose penal provisions cover closely related species of offenses, a single search warrant may validly cover illegal possession of different categories of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia without violating the rule against warrants for more than one specific offense.

• Inadmissible Uncounselled Admissions in Seizure Receipts — When an accused in police custody signs a receipt or inventory of seized property that contains descriptive words such as “may-ari” or “owner” implying ownership of the contraband, and does so without the assistance of counsel, the document functions as an uncounselled extrajudicial confession and is inadmissible under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The preparation of such a document substitutes for custodial interrogation and circumvents constitutional rights.

• Proof of Unlawful Sale of Dangerous Drugs — Conviction for unlawful sale of a dangerous drug under the Dangerous Drugs Act requires unequivocal and positive evidence that the selling transaction actually took place. The mere possession of a considerable quantity of a prohibited or regulated drug, without more, does not establish sale; an uncorroborated notebook of names and figures that is not properly authenticated does not constitute sufficient proof.

• Included Offense of Illegal Possession — The crime of illegal possession of a prohibited or regulated drug is a lesser offense necessarily included in the crime of unlawful sale of the same drug. If the evidence fails to prove the sale beyond reasonable doubt but sufficiently establishes possession, the accused may be convicted of the included possession offense.

• Control, Not Ownership, of Searched Premises — A search warrant is validly executed upon premises that are under the control or possession of the person named in the warrant; actual ownership of the property is not required. Using and residing in the premises is sufficient evidence of control.

• “It is clear that the search warrant cannot be assailed as a general search warrant because while it is for ‘Violation of RA 6425 known as the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended,”’ the body thereof, which is controlling, particularizes the place to be searched and the things to be seized, and specifies the offense involved, viz., illegal possession of marijuana and shabu and paraphernalia in connection therewith.”

• “The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals specifically with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into ‘prohibited’ and ‘regulated’ drugs and defines and penalizes categories of offenses which are closely related or which belong to the same class or species. Accordingly, one (1) search warrant may thus be validly issued for the said violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.”

• “By such descriptive words, appellant was in fact made to admit that he is the owner of the articles seized … the house searched … and the articles inventoried in the receipt …. This was a clever way of circumventing the aforesaid Constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent. … The preparation of the exhibits substituted, for all legal intents and purposes, the custodial interrogation.”

• “In a prosecution for illegal sale of marijuana, what is material is the proof that the selling transaction transpired coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence, and that to sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs, the sale must be clearly and unmistakably established.”

• “The crime of unlawful possession of shabu, a regulated drug, under Section 16 is necessarily included in the crime of unlawful sale thereof under Section 15. Similarly, the crime of unlawful possession of marijuana under Section 8 is necessarily included in the crime of unlawful sale of marijuana under Section 4 of the Act.”

• Olaes v. People, 155 SCRA 486 (1988) — Followed; a search warrant similarly captioned “Violation of RA 6425” was upheld as valid because the body specified the offense with particularity, rejecting the claim that it was a general warrant.

• Prudente v. Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69 (1989) — Followed; a search warrant for illegal possession of firearms, etc. under P.D. No. 1866 was valid even without citing the specific section, because the offenses were closely related and the description in the application sufficiently indicated the specific offense.

• Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967) — Distinguished; unlike the sweeping warrants in Stonehill that merely invoked whole codes, the warrant here described the items with particularity, so the evidence was not excludable under that doctrine.

• People v. Olivares, 186 SCRA 536 (1990) — Distinguished; unlike the documents in Olivares that contained no statement against interest, the exhibits here contained express admissions of ownership and thus amounted to uncounselled confessions.

• People v. Toledo, 140 SCRA 259 (1985) — Distinguished; conviction in Toledo did not rest solely on the quantity of drugs seized but on a valid extrajudicial confession detailing the buying and selling activities, whereas Dichoso’s extrajudicial admissions were invalid, and no other evidence proved the sale.

• People v. Claudio, 160 SCRA 646 (1988) — Distinguished; the case dealt with transportation of marijuana, not sale, and the accused was caught in the act of transporting.

• Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 — Cited on the plain view doctrine, but the doctrine was held inapplicable because the notebook was not contraband and the warrant was for possession, not sale.

• Uy Khetin v. Villareal, 42 Phil. 886 (1920) — Cited for the rule that only items listed in the warrant may be seized; the plain view exception was discussed but not applied in favor of the prosecution.

• Section 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425 — Charged offense of unlawful sale, delivery, distribution, or transportation of a regulated drug (shabu). The trial court’s conviction under this section was set aside for insufficiency of proof of sale.

• Section 4, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425 — Charged offense of unlawful sale, administration, delivery, distribution, or transportation of a prohibited drug (marijuana). Conviction reversed for the same reason.

• Section 16, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425 — Penalizes illegal possession of a regulated drug. The appellant was convicted under this section after it was found that illegal possession is necessarily included in the unlawful sale charge and was proven by the seizure from his premises. The penalty prescribed is imprisonment from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine of six thousand to twelve thousand pesos.

• Section 8, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended — Penalizes illegal possession of a prohibited drug. Conviction under this section entered as the included offense of the sale charge. Penalty identical to Section 16.

• Section 12, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Right to remain silent and to competent and independent counsel during custodial investigation. Applied to invalidate the search‑scene documents containing admissions of ownership signed by the unassisted accused.

• Section 3, Rule 126, Rules of Court — Requirement that no search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense. Interpreted as not violated where the warrant covers multiple, closely related offenses under the same special penal law.

• Section 3(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court — Presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. Invoked against the defense of frame‑up.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended) — Applied in imposing a minimum and maximum term; the sentence for each possession offense was fixed at eight (8) years minimum to twelve (12) years maximum.

• Section 30, Republic Act No. 6425 — Exemption of voluntary drug dependents from criminal liability; held inapplicable because occasional use does not constitute drug dependence and no voluntary submission was made.

Associate Justices Florentino P. Feliciano, Abdulwahid A. Bidin, Flerida Ruth P. Romero, and Jose A. R. Melo concurred.