People vs. Nuñez

A search warrant does not authorize the seizure of items not specifically described therein; under the principle of ejusdem generis, generic terms in a warrant are limited to items of a similar nature to those expressly enumerated, and officers possess no discretion to seize items they unilaterally deem as proceeds or instruments of the crime.

Operatives of the Sta. Cruz, Laguna Police Detectives, coordinated with the Los Baños Police Station, secured Search Warrant No. 42 targeting the residence of Raul R. Nuñez for methamphetamine hydrochloride and paraphernalia. At 6:00 a.m. on April 26, 2001, the police team, accompanied by barangay officials, served the warrant. During the search of appellant’s room, SPO1 Ilagan recovered 31 heat-sealed plastic sachets of shabu and drug paraphernalia from a dresser. The team also confiscated a wallet with cash, a camera, speakers, an electric planer, a grinder, a drill, a jigsaw, an electric tester, and assorted carpentry tools, suspecting these were acquired in exchange for drugs. Appellant signed the Receipt for Property Seized and Certification of Orderly Search.

• The Search and Seizure: On April 26, 2001, police operatives served Search Warrant No. 42 at the residence of Raul Nuñez in Barangay San Antonio, Los Baños, Laguna. Barangay Captain Mario Mundin and Chief Tanod Alfredo Joaquin were present. Commanding Officer Pagkalinawan showed the warrant to Nuñez. SPO1 Ilagan and PO2 Crisostomo searched Nuñez's room, finding 31 packets of shabu, lighters, improvised burners, tooters, and aluminum foil with shabu residue inside a dresser, along with ₱4,610 in a lady's wallet. The officers also seized various carpentry tools and electronics on suspicion they were proceeds of the drug trade. SPO1 Ilagan issued a Receipt for Property Seized and a Certification of Orderly Search, both signed by Nuñez.
• The Defense of Frame-up: Appellant denied owning the shabu, claiming it was planted. His daughter, Liezel Nuñez, testified that she saw a man take a plastic containing a substance resembling "tawas" from a bag and place it under the bed. She could not identify the officer and stated only one plastic was placed.

• Frame-up and Planted Evidence: Appellant maintained that the shabu was planted by the police, pointing to the testimony of his daughter who witnessed an officer place a plastic under the bed.
• Inconsistencies in Testimonies: Appellant argued that variances in the testimonies of SPO1 Ilagan and PO2 Ortega—regarding where they picked up the barangay officials and whether appellant was present inside the room during the search—cast doubt on his culpability.
• Invalidity of the Search Warrant: Appellant assailed the warrant for lacking his exact address, indicating only the barangay and street, and contended that the search was invalid because the occupants were kept in the living room and did not witness the search of the room.
• Non-presentation of Barangay Officials: Appellant questioned the prosecution's failure to present the barangay officials as witnesses to clarify the details of the search.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The OSG argued that appellant's guilt was sufficiently proven, emphasizing that the defense of frame-up is a common and easily fabricated defense in drug cases.
• Presumption of Regularity: Respondent countered that appellant failed to present evidence to overcome the presumption that law enforcement agents regularly performed their duties, and that the testimonies of appellant, his wife, and child were self-serving absent any proof of ill motive on the part of the officers.
• Waiver of Objection to the Warrant: Respondent brushed aside the challenge to the validity of the search warrant for having been belatedly raised.

• Credibility and Frame-up: Whether the defense of frame-up and the alleged inconsistencies in prosecution testimonies are sufficient to overturn the conviction for possession of regulated drugs.
• Validity of Seizure of Unlisted Items: Whether the seizure of items not specifically described in the search warrant—specifically carpentry tools, electronics, and cash—was valid.

• Credibility and Frame-up: The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of credence. The daughter's testimony accounted for only one sachet placed under the bed, failing to explain the 31 packets and paraphernalia found in the dresser. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails absent proof of ill motive, and the inconsistencies between SPO1 Ilagan and PO2 Ortega were deemed inconsequential as they corroborated on material details of the crime. Objections to the legality of the search warrant were deemed waived for not being raised during trial.
• Validity of Seizure of Unlisted Items: The seizure of items not specified in the search warrant was declared impermissible. Under the principle of ejusdem generis, the term "paraphernalia" in the warrant is limited to items related to the use or manufacture of drugs and cannot encompass carpentry tools, electronics, or cash. Police officers cannot exercise their own discretion to determine which items constitute proceeds or means of the offense; the constitutional requirement of particularity in search warrants leaves officers with no discretion regarding what to seize.

• Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duty — Law enforcement officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner; this presumption stands unless overcome by evidence to the contrary, such as proof of ill motive. Applied to uphold the credibility of the arresting officers absent any showing of motive to falsely testify.
• Particularity of Description in Search Warrants — The constitutional requirement that articles to be seized be particularly described in the warrant limits seizure to those, and only those, described, leaving officers with no discretion. A search warrant cannot be used as a sweeping authority for a fishing expedition. Applied to invalidate the seizure of items not related to drug use or manufacture.
• Ejusdem Generis — Where a statute or document describes things of a particular class accompanied by words of a generic character, the generic word is limited to things of a similar nature to those particularly enumerated. Applied to limit the term "paraphernalia" in the search warrant to items bearing a relation to the use or manufacture of drugs, excluding carpentry tools and electronics.

• "The purpose of the constitutional requirement that the articles to be seized be particularly described in the warrant is to limit the things to be taken to those, and only those particularly described in the search warrant -- to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize."
• "A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime."

• People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87 (July 7, 2004) — Followed as the procedural basis for transferring the appeal from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals in cases where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.
• People v. Go, G.R. No. 144639 (September 12, 2003) — Followed for the rule that only personal properties described in the search warrant may be seized and that a search warrant is not a sweeping authority for a fishing expedition.
• People v. Torres, G.R. No. 170837 (September 12, 2006) — Followed for the elements of possession of regulated drugs and the doctrine that objections to the admissibility of evidence obtained via search warrant are waived if not raised during trial.
• Dimacuha v. People, G.R. No. 143705 (February 23, 2007) — Followed for the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the prosecutor's discretion in choosing which witnesses to present.

• Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines the crime of Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs and prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine. Applied as the substantive provision under which appellant was convicted.
• Section 20(3), Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Provides the scale of penalties based on the quantity of dangerous drugs; possession of 200 grams or more of shabu warrants the maximum penalty. Applied to justify the imposition of reclusion perpetua given the 233.93 grams seized.
• Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court — Enumerates the personal property that may be seized via search warrant: (a) subject of the offense; (b) stolen or embezzled proceeds or fruits; or (c) used or intended to be used as means of committing an offense. Cited to emphasize that seizure is restricted to items falling under these categories and specifically described in the warrant.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion.