People vs. Go

Evidence obtained from an unreasonable search conducted in violation of Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court—which mandates that a search of a house be conducted 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—is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule; the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be invoked to overcome clear evidence of procedural violations or to justify encroachment upon constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In April 1999, police officers conducted a "test buy" operation at the residence of Benny Go located at 1480 General Luna Street, Ermita, Manila, where they successfully purchased shabu from him. Instead of effecting an immediate arrest, the police officers applied for a search warrant from the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, claiming that a large quantity of illegal drugs was stored in his house. Search Warrant No. 99-0038 was subsequently issued, commanding the police to search the premises and seize methamphetamine hydrochloride, weighing scales, drug paraphernalia, and proceeds of the crime.

• On April 28, 1999, police officers conducted a "test buy" operation at appellant's residence at 1480 General Luna Street, Ermita, Manila, purchasing P1,500.00 worth of methamphetamine hydrochloride from him.
• On June 14, 1999, at approximately 6:00 PM, a raiding team composed of SPO1 Fernandez, SPO1 Serqueña, PO2 Abulencia, PO3 Adtu, and PO2 Jimenez proceeded to appellant's residence to execute Search Warrant No. 99-0038 issued by the RTC of Pasay City.
• To gain entry, the police officers deliberately sideswiped appellant's Toyota Corolla GLI parked outside the house, prompting Jack Go, appellant's son and the only occupant present, to open the door.
• Upon entry, the police immediately handcuffed Jack Go to a chair in the sala, allegedly as standard operating procedure, despite his lack of provocation or resistance.
• SPO1 Serqueña left to summon barangay officials and returned with Kagawad Gaspar Lazaro and Kagawad Emmanuel Manalo five minutes later.
• The police conducted the search of the upper floor in the presence of the barangay officials while Jack Go remained handcuffed downstairs, allegedly because he refused to witness the search claiming barangay officials were already present.
• The search lasted from 6:00 PM to 11:00 PM. During the search, police allegedly recovered 204 grams of shabu (Exhibit A) from a drawer in Jack Go's room, as well as various other items including documents, passports, bankbooks, checks, dry seals, stamp pads, currency, and the Toyota Corolla car.
• Appellant arrived at the house at approximately 9:30 PM when the search was almost completed.
• SPO1 Fernandez prepared a handwritten Inventory Receipt and an "Affidavit of Orderly Search" which appellant, Jack Go, and the barangay officials signed; appellant was not informed of his right to refuse to sign or to have counsel present.
• The seized items were brought to Camp Bagong Diwa for investigation, where appellant was detained while others were released.
• The Return of Search Warrant filed on June 18, 1999 was not verified under oath as required by Section 12, Rule 126.
• The defense presented evidence that the first page of the Inventory Receipt had been substituted, that no shabu was actually recovered during the search, and that police officers demanded P10,000,000.00 (later reduced to P500,000.00) from appellant in exchange for not charging him.
• Barangay Kagawads Lazaro and Manalo testified for the prosecution as hostile witnesses, categorically stating that no shabu or weighing scale was recovered or inventoried during the search, and that the only items seized were Chinese medicine, documents, and passports.

• The trial court erred in according the police officers the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty despite convincing proofs to the contrary, including the sideswiping of the vehicle, handcuffing of Jack Go, and substitution of the inventory receipt.
• The trial court erred in holding that 204 grams of shabu was recovered from the house based on the testimony of PO2 Abulencia and the supporting Inventory Receipt, which were completely contradicted by prosecution witness Barangay Kagawad Gaspar Lazaro and defense witnesses.
• The trial court erred in rendering judgment finding appellant guilty and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua instead of acquitting him for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the irregularities in the search and the lack of credible evidence.
• The police officers violated Section 8, Rule 126 by not conducting the search in the presence of the lawful occupant (Jack Go) who was present but restrained, and by failing to provide a detailed receipt and verified return of the warrant.
• Items not particularly described in the search warrant, including the vehicle, money, documents, and other personal effects, should be returned to the appellant as they were illegally seized without falling under any recognized exception.

• The police officers are entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty, and there is no showing that they were motivated by ill will or malice in conducting the search and arrest.
• The validity of the search is clearly shown by the Affidavit of Orderly Search signed by the accused, his son Jack Go, and witnesses Salvador Manalo and Gaspar Lazaro, which establishes the propriety and validity of the search.
• The testimonies of the police officers are more credible than those of the defense witnesses, and the trial court's findings of fact should be accorded the highest degree of respect.
• The items seized, including the vehicle and money, were either proceeds of the crime or means of committing the offense, and other items such as documents and seals were seized under the plain view doctrine as they were instruments of falsification.
• The barangay officials who testified for the defense were lying and had been influenced by the appellant's counsel to falsify their testimonies, as evidenced by their change of stance after the preliminary investigation.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the trial court erred in according the police officers the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty despite evidence of irregularities in the execution of the search warrant.
  • Whether the appellant's Motion for Return of Personal Documents, Vehicle and Paraphernalia should be granted with respect to items not particularly described in the search warrant.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the search of appellant's residence was conducted in a reasonable manner consistent with constitutional protections and the mandatory requirements of Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.
  • Whether the evidence (204 grams of shabu) was admissible given the irregularities in its seizure, including the lack of proper witnesses, defective inventory, and unverified return of the warrant.
  • Whether the prosecution proved appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of regulated drugs under Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425.

• Procedural:
  • The presumption of regularity was improperly applied by the trial court. The police officers' own testimonies revealed multiple deviations from standard and mandatory procedures, including the sideswiping of the vehicle to gain entry, the immediate handcuffing of the lawful occupant, the failure to conduct the search in his presence despite his availability, and the lack of a detailed inventory and verified return. These irregularities overcome the presumption and taint the search with unreasonableness.
  • The Motion for Return of Personal Documents, Vehicle and Paraphernalia is granted in part. Items seized that were not particularly described in the search warrant—including the Toyota Corolla, cash, passports, bankbooks, checks, typewriter, check writer, and assorted documents—must be returned to the appellant, as they do not fall under the "plain view" exception or any other recognized exception. However, two dry seals and eight rubber stamps certified as counterfeit by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation are forfeited to the State and not returned.
• Substantive:
  • The search was unreasonable and illegal. The police violated Section 8, Rule 126 by conducting the search of the upper floor in the presence of barangay officials while the lawful occupant, Jack Go, was present but handcuffed to a chair downstairs. The law establishes a hierarchy of witnesses, and the presence of the lawful occupant or family member is mandatory; barangay officials cannot substitute when the occupant is present but restrained. Jack Go could not have voluntarily waived his right to witness the search while handcuffed and under duress.
  • The police further violated procedural requirements by: (1) failing to follow the "knock and announce" procedure; (2) failing to provide a detailed receipt for the voluminous documents seized; (3) failing to verify the Return of Search Warrant under oath; and (4) inducing the appellant to sign the Inventory Receipt without informing him of his right to remain silent and to counsel, rendering the receipt inadmissible.
  • The "Affidavit of Orderly Search" is inadmissible as it was prepared by the police, signed by the appellant without counsel after the search was completed, and cannot validate a search conducted in his absence.
  • The testimonies of the barangay witnesses (Kagawad Lazaro and Manalo) that no shabu was recovered create reasonable doubt, especially given the police officers' admission that the weighing scale—a key item described in the warrant—was conspicuously absent from the initial inventory and appeared to be an afterthought.
  • Applying the exclusionary rule, the shabu (Exhibit A) is inadmissible as the fruit of an unreasonable search conducted in violation of the Constitution and the Rules of Court. Without the corpus delicti, the conviction cannot stand, and acquittal is mandated.

• Exclusionary Rule — Evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding; exclusion is the only practical means of enforcing constitutional rights and repressing official misconduct.
• Hierarchy of Witnesses in Search Execution — Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court establishes a mandatory hierarchy: the search must be conducted 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 serve as substitutes. Police discretion cannot override this statutory requirement, and restraint of the occupant constitutes constructive absence.
• Presumption of Regularity — While public officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, this presumption cannot be invoked to justify encroachment on constitutional rights or to overcome clear and convincing proof of irregularity in the execution of a search warrant.
• Plain View Doctrine — Objects within the plain view of an officer with a right to be in the position to view are subject to seizure only if: (a) there is prior justification for the intrusion; (b) the discovery is inadvertent; and (c) the illegal character of the item is immediately apparent to the officer without need for further examination or inquiry. The doctrine does not apply where the illegal character is not immediately apparent or where the discovery is not inadvertent.
• Particularity Requirement in Search Warrants — The constitutional mandate that warrants particularly describe the things to be seized is intended to limit the seizure to those items specifically described, leaving officers no discretion to conduct fishing expeditions or to seize items based on their own determination of relevance.

• "A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the constitutional and statutory provisions under which it is issued. Otherwise, it is void... No presumptions of regularity are to be invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to justify under it."
• "Exclusion is the only practical way of enforcing the constitutional privilege... Only in case the prosecution which itself controls the seizing officials, knows that it cannot profit by their wrong, will that wrong be repressed."
• "Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty."
• "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."

• People v. Veloso — Established that no presumptions of regularity may be invoked to justify encroachment of rights secured by the Constitution in the execution of search warrants; search warrants must conform strictly to constitutional requirements.
• People v. Gesmundo — Held that admissions obtained during custodial investigation without informing the suspect of rights to remain silent and to counsel are inadmissible; also emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 7 (now 8), Rule 126 regarding the presence of witnesses during search.
• People v. Del Rosario — Applied the exclusionary rule where police conduct created serious doubts about the authenticity of seized evidence; held that irregularities in search execution favor the accused.
• People v. Aminnudin — Stressed that the campaign against drugs cannot justify disregard for constitutional rights; held that it is less evil that some criminals escape than that the government play an ignoble part.
• Asian Surety And Insurance Co., Inc. v. Herrera — Emphasized the necessity for detailed receipts of seized items to safeguard constitutional rights and prevent the substitution of evidence.
• People v. Policarpio — Condemned the practice of inducing suspects to sign receipts for confiscated items as a violation of the right to remain silent and as an indirect extra-judicial confession.
• People v. Doria — Articulated the requisites for the plain view doctrine; cited for the rule that the illegal character of the item must be immediately apparent.
• Tambasen v. People — Reiterated that only personal properties particularly described in the search warrant may be seized; officers may not exercise discretion in determining what articles to seize.

• Section 2 and 3(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures and renders any evidence obtained in violation thereof inadmissible for any purpose.
• Section 16, Article III in relation to Section 2(e-2), Article I, Republic Act No. 6425 — Defines and penalizes illegal possession of regulated drugs (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).
• Section 8 (formerly Section 7), Rule 126, Rules of Court — Mandates that search of a house, room, or premises shall be made in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family, or in their absence, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
• Section 11, Rule 126, Rules of Court — Requires officers seizing property under a warrant to give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant or, in his absence, to leave a receipt in the presence of two witnesses.
• Section 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court — Mandates that the officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath; violation constitutes contempt of court.
• Article 130, Revised Penal Code — Punishes irregularities in the issuance or service of search warrants.