People vs. Tee

A search warrant describing "an undetermined amount of marijuana" satisfies the constitutional requirement of particularity because illicit drugs are illegal per se, making further description unnecessary and ordinarily impossible, provided the description limits the seizure to items of a specified character bearing a direct relation to the offense.

Modesto Tee, a Chinese businessman and resident of Baguio City, engaged taxi driver Danilo Abratique to transport and store boxes of marijuana, first at a rented house in Bakakeng, then at Tee's residence in Green Valley, and finally at a rented room at No. 27 Dr. Cariño St. After Abratique and the room's caretaker, Nazarea Abreau, became fearful of involvement, they disclosed the contraband to the NBI. A joint NBI-PNP NARCOM operation ensued, leading to the warrantless seizure of 336.93 kilograms of marijuana from the Cariño St. premises and, pursuant to a search warrant, 591.81 kilograms from Tee's Green Valley residence.

• Initial Storage and Transfer: Appellant hired Abratique to find storage for purported smuggled cigarettes, leading to the rental of Albert Ballesteros's house in Bakakeng. Upon discovering the boxes contained marijuana, Ballesteros demanded their removal. Abratique then transported the boxes to appellant's residence at Km. 6, Dontogan, Green Valley.
• Second Storage Site: Appellant later hired Abratique to transport sacks of marijuana from Sablan, Benguet, storing them at the house of Abratique's grandmother at No. 27 Dr. Cariño St., managed by Nazarea Abreau.
• The Tip and First Seizure: Bothered by the contraband, Abratique and Abreau informed NBI Agent Edwin Fianza. On July 1, 1998, during a joint NBI-PNP NARCOM stakeout at the Cariño St. house, agents grew apprehensive when appellant did not appear. Abreau permitted entry, leading to the discovery and seizure of 336.93 kilograms of marijuana.
• Issuance and Execution of Search Warrant: NBI Special Agent Lising and witness Abratique applied for a search warrant before RTC Judge Antonio Reyes, who issued the warrant for appellant's Green Valley residence. The warrant was served on appellant, witnessed by barangay officials, media, and family, resulting in the seizure of 591.81 kilograms of marijuana.
• Trial Proceedings: During trial, prosecution witness Abratique failed to appear on twenty scheduled hearing dates, prompting the trial court to order his arrest five times and sanction an NBI agent for contempt. The prosecution was directed to rest its case but, before formally offering evidence, Abratique was produced by the NBI. The trial court allowed the "reopening" of the case to complete his testimony, which appellant did not oppose.

• Validity of Search Warrant: Petitioner argued that the search warrant was void for being a general warrant, as it described "an undetermined amount of marijuana" and failed to pinpoint the specific section of R.A. 6425 violated. He also contended that the examining judge failed to exhaustively question the applicant and witness, relying on hearsay, and that the address in the warrant was unclear.
• Right to Speedy Trial: Petitioner maintained that the prosecution's unjustified delay in presenting witness Abratique, who was absent for twenty hearing dates, violated his constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial.
• Reopening of Case: Petitioner argued that the trial court gravely abused its discretion and exhibited partiality by allowing the reopening of the case to receive Abratique's testimony after the prosecution had been directed to rest its case.
• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner insisted that Abratique's testimony was incredible, evasive, and self-exculpatory, and that the acquittal in the second case should extend to the first due to the alleged illegality of the search.

• Validity of Search Warrant: Respondent countered that the particularity requirement does not demand a specific amount of prohibited drugs, as this is impossible to determine beforehand, and the warrant sufficiently specified the offense of illegal possession. Abratique possessed personal knowledge, and the address was specific, supplemented by a detailed sketch.
• Right to Speedy Trial: Respondent argued that the two-month delay was not unreasonable, vexatious, or oppressive, as the prosecution actively sought the witness's arrest and appellant failed to object to the postponements.
• Reopening of Case: Respondent contended that the trial court's order was in the interest of substantial justice, the prosecution had not formally rested its case, and the reopening was merely a continuation of an uncompleted testimony that did not prejudice the accused.
• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Respondent maintained that Abratique's testimony was credible and corroborated by the physical evidence of 591.81 kilograms of marijuana seized from appellant's residence.

• Validity of Search Warrant: Whether a search warrant describing "an undetermined amount of marijuana" and citing a violation of R.A. 6425 without specifying the exact section is void for being a general warrant.
• Right to Speedy Trial: Whether the failure of a prosecution witness to appear on twenty hearing dates violated the accused's right to a speedy trial.
• Reopening of Case: Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in allowing the reopening of the case to complete a prosecution witness's testimony.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution's evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for illegal possession of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the death penalty was properly imposed for illegal possession of 591.81 kilograms of marijuana.

• Validity of Search Warrant: The search warrant was upheld as valid. The description "undetermined amount of marijuana" satisfies the constitutional requirement of particularity because marijuana is illegal per se; technical precision is not required where the nature of the goods makes further description ordinarily impossible. The warrant specified the offense as illegal possession of marijuana, which is sufficient even without pinpointing the exact statutory section. The examining judge properly relied on the personal knowledge of witness Abratique, and the presumption of regular performance of judicial duty was not overcome.
• Right to Speedy Trial: The right to a speedy trial was not violated. The delay of twenty hearing days was not vexatious, capricious, or oppressive, as the prosecution actively sought the witness's arrest and even moved to have an NBI agent cited in contempt. Appellant failed to object to the postponements or move for the witness to post bail.
• Reopening of Case: No grave abuse of discretion was committed. Because the prosecution had not yet formally offered its evidence, there was technically no "reopening" but a mere completion of an unfinished testimony. The admission of further testimony rests within the trial court's discretion, provided it does not prejudice the accused, who was given the opportunity to present counter-evidence.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The conviction was affirmed. The elements of illegal possession were proven: appellant possessed 591.81 kilograms of marijuana, the possession was unauthorized, and possession of a prohibited drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, shifting the burden to the accused, who failed to offer a satisfactory explanation.
• Proper Penalty: The death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, when the law prescribes two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty must be applied. Exceeding the quantity threshold in the Dangerous Drugs Act does not automatically warrant the maximum penalty of death.

• Particularity of Description in Search Warrants — The constitutional requirement that things to be seized must be particularly described is satisfied if the description: (1) is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; (2) expresses a conclusion of fact by which peace officers may be guided; and (3) limits the seizure to items bearing a direct relation to the offense. For illicit drugs, describing an "undetermined amount" is sufficiently particular because the items are illegal per se, rendering further description unnecessary and ordinarily impossible.
• Prima Facie Evidence of Animus Possidendi — Possession of a prohibited drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession. The onus probandi shifts to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.
• Application of Indivisible Penalties — When the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties (e.g., reclusion perpetua to death), Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code applies. If there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty must be applied, regardless of the excess in the quantity of dangerous drugs involved.

• "The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of description of the things to be seized is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures."
• "Tested against the foregoing precedents, the description 'an undetermined amount of marijuana' must be held to satisfy the requirement for particularity in a search warrant. Noteworthy, what is to be seized in the instant case is property of a specified character, i.e., marijuana, an illicit drug. By reason of its character and the circumstances under which it would be found, said article is illegal. A further description would be unnecessary and ordinarily impossible, except as to such character, the place, and the circumstances."
• "The legislature never intended that where the quantity involved exceeds those stated in Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425 the maximum penalty of death shall automatically be imposed. The statute prescribes two indivisible penalties: reclusion perpetua and death. Hence, the penalty to be imposed must conform with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code."

• People v. Dichoso, 223 SCRA 174 (1993) — Followed. The description "illegally in possession of undetermined quantity/amount of dried marijuana leaves and Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) and sets of paraphernalia" was held to particularize the things to be seized, supporting the validity of the description "undetermined amount of marijuana" in the present case.
• Alvarez v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 64 Phil. 33 (1937) — Followed. Established the test for the sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit to warrant the issuance of a search warrant: whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and the affiant held liable for damages.
• People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592 (2000) — Followed. Held that the death penalty does not automatically attach when the quantity of drugs exceeds the threshold; Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code governs the application of indivisible penalties.
• People v. Baludda, 318 SCRA 503 (1999) — Followed. Ruled that possession of a prohibited drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, shifting the burden of evidence to the accused.

• Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Requires that search warrants particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Applied to uphold that "undetermined amount of marijuana" is a sufficiently particular description for illicit drugs.
• Section 8, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7659 — Penalizes the possession or use of prohibited drugs with reclusion perpetua to death and a fine. Applied as the substantive basis for the conviction.
• Section 20, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Provides the quantities of dangerous drugs that trigger the penalties in Section 8. Applied to determine that the 591.81 kilograms of marijuana exceeded the 750-gram threshold.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides the rules for the application of indivisible penalties. Applied to reduce the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua because there were neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances.
• Rule 126, Sections 4 and 5, Rules of Court — Prescribe the requisites for issuing a search warrant and the manner of examination of the complainant and witnesses. Applied to validate the issuance and execution of the search warrant.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ.