Sio vs. People

Evidence seized during the implementation of a search warrant is inadmissible when the officers search a place not particularly described in the warrant, seize items not listed, and fail to comply with the mandatory witness and inventory requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 at the time of entry, as such non-compliance renders the search unreasonable and the chain of custody fatally defective.

In 2010, Police Senior Inspector Paulino G. Raguindin of the Philippine National Police Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force applied for a search warrant with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Manila Regional Trial Court. The application, supported by information from a confidential informant, alleged that Antonio U. Sio, a businessperson, possessed an undetermined quantity of shabu and was using his residence in Lucena City to store drugs prior to distribution. The application further stated that Sio used a Toyota Camry with plate number ZYR 468 and a Honda Civic with plate number ZGS 763 in illegal drug trafficking, and possessed other vital documents.

• Nature of the Charges: Two separate Informations were filed against Antonio U. Sio for illegal possession of 116.16 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Section 11, and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (an aluminum strip, two unsealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, and an improvised tooter) under Section 12, both of Republic Act No. 9165.

• Application for Search Warrant: Police Senior Inspector Paulino G. Raguindin applied for a search warrant based on information from a confidential informant. The application alleged that Sio possessed shabu, assorted drug paraphernalia, “vehicle being used by the subject in his illegal drug trafficking activities particularly a Toyota Camry with Plate No. ZYR-468 and Honda Civic with Plate No. ZGS-763,” and other vital documents, all kept at “Ilaya Ibaba, Purok 34, Barangay Dalahican, Lucena City.” A sketch of the place was attached as Annex “A.”

• Issuance of Search Warrant: After examining PS/Insp. Raguindin and his witness, PO3 Pepito C. San Pedro, the Manila Regional Trial Court issued a search warrant on October 22, 2010 authorizing the search of the premises described.

• Implementation of the Search Warrant: On October 24, 2010, at around 7:00 a.m., task force operatives entered and searched Sio’s residence. The search was implemented at Barangay Purok 3A, Barangay Dalahican, Lucena City, not Ilaya Ibaba, Purok 34 as stated in the warrant. No Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency operatives were present. The media and barangay officials arrived at approximately 10:00 a.m., three hours after entry. The search was conducted without Sio, any member of his family, or any barangay representative present during the initial entry and search. No Department of Justice representative was shown to have been present at the implementation.

• Items Seized: The police seized an undetermined quantity of suspected shabu (later testing positive), a .45 caliber Remington with 18 live ammunition and two magazines, a Honda CRV with plate number XPX 792, and a Toyota Camry with plate number ZRY 758. The vehicles seized had plate numbers different from those listed in the warrant. A Land Transportation Office certification later showed that no vehicle with plate number ZYR 468 existed, and the Honda Civic with plate number ZGS 763 was registered to another person.

• Omnibus Motion and RTC Ruling: Sio filed an Entry of Appearance with Omnibus Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest, raising the discrepancies in the place searched, the non-existent and misregistered vehicles, the seizure of unlisted vehicles, the absence of PDEA operatives and other witnesses, and the alleged planting of evidence. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion in its May 7, 2013 Order, finding after an independent examination of the records that sufficient grounds existed to engender a well-founded belief that a crime had been committed and Sio was probably guilty.

• Court of Appeals Ruling: The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court judge personally evaluated the records and did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court emphasized that judges are not required to personally examine witnesses, only to satisfy themselves on the existence of probable cause.

• Invalid Search Warrant Implementation: Petitioner argued that the search warrant was implemented at a different address (Barangay Purok 3A instead of Ilaya Ibaba, Purok 34), and vehicles with plate numbers not listed in the warrant were seized, rendering the search unreasonable and the resulting seizure illegal.

• Violation of Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165: Petitioner maintained that the search warrant was executed without the presence of PDEA operatives, media, barangay officials, or a DOJ representative at the time of entry; the media and barangay officials arrived only three hours later; and the search was conducted without the lawful occupant or any family member present. These lapses rendered the seized evidence inadmissible.

• Absence of Probable Cause: Petitioner contended that without the illegally obtained evidence, no probable cause existed to support the Informations filed against him.

• Questions of Fact Not Reviewable: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the Petition for Review raised purely factual issues that are not proper in a Rule 45 petition and should be dismissed outright.

• No Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondent countered that the Court of Appeals correctly found no grave abuse of discretion, as the trial court judges independently examined and assessed the case records before finding probable cause. The judges’ personal examination of witnesses was not required.

• Particularity of Place and Items in Search Warrant: Whether the implementation of the search warrant was unreasonable because the police searched a place different from that described in the warrant and seized items not listed, thereby rendering the evidence seized inadmissible.

• Compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165: Whether the search and seizure violated the mandatory chain of custody requirements under Section 21, specifically the absence of required witnesses at the time of entry and the conduct of the inventory and photographing at the place of service.

• Existence of Probable Cause: Whether probable cause existed to support the arrest warrant and the Informations once the seized evidence was declared inadmissible.

• Particularity of Place and Items in Search Warrant: The search was unreasonable and invalid. The warrant particularly described the place to be searched as “Ilaya Ibaba, Purok 34, Barangay Dalahican, Lucena City,” but the police implemented it at “Barangay Purok 3A, Barangay Dalahican.” The place searched cannot be amplified or modified by the officers’ personal knowledge of the premises or the evidence they submitted; the place stated in the warrant itself is controlling. Additionally, vehicles with plate numbers XPX 792 and ZRY 758 were seized instead of the listed ZYR 468 and ZGS 763. These inconsistencies enlarged the scope of the warrant beyond what was authorized, granting overbroad discretion to law enforcement and defeating the constitutional requirement of particularity. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority for a fishing expedition. The seized evidence, including the shabu and drug paraphernalia, was therefore inadmissible.

• Compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165: The search separately violated Section 21. The law applies with equal force to searches conducted by virtue of a warrant. Under the statute and its Implementing Rules, the apprehending team must, immediately after seizure, physically inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of (1) the accused or his representative/counsel, (2) a media representative, (3) a DOJ representative, and (4) any elected public official, and the inventory and photographing must be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served. Here, the police entered at 7:00 a.m., and the media and barangay officials arrived only at 10:00 a.m.; no DOJ representative was shown to have been present at any stage. The search was conducted without the accused or any member of his family. This non-compliance was unjustifiable given the operation was planned; the saving clause is triggered only upon proof of (1) justifiable grounds and (2) preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, applied sequentially. The failure to satisfy the first prong rendered the evidence inadmissible irrespective of any attempt to show preservation of integrity.

• Existence of Probable Cause: With the shabu and drug paraphernalia declared inadmissible, no corpus delicti remained to support the charges. Consequently, there was no probable cause for the issuance of an arrest warrant or for the filing of the Informations. The criminal cases must be dismissed.

• Particularity of Place to be Searched — The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the officers’ own personal knowledge or the evidence they adduced in support of the application. What is material in determining validity is the place stated in the warrant itself. A search of a place different from that clearly and unambiguously identified is unreasonable, and the resulting seizure is invalid.

• Chain of Custody under Section 21, RA 9165 in Search Warrant Operations — Section 21 of RA 9165 applies to searches and seizures conducted under a search warrant. Immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team must physically inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. Under the IRR, the inventory and photographing shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served. Non-compliance may be excused only upon proof of justifiable grounds and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved; the two requisites are sequential, not alternative. Unjustified lapses in procedure cannot be overcome by mere proof that the integrity of the evidence was preserved; in such case, the saving clause is not triggered.

• Effect of Inadmissible Evidence on Probable Cause — When the dangerous drug and drug paraphernalia—the corpus delicti of the offenses—are declared inadmissible due to an unconstitutional search and seizure and violation of Section 21, no probable cause exists to support an arrest warrant or the criminal Informations, and the cases must be dismissed.

• “A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime.”

• “The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the officers' own personal knowledge of the premises, or the evidence they adduced in support of their application for the warrant. Such a change is proscribed by the Constitution which requires inter alia the search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched as well as the persons or things to be seized. It would concede to police officers the power of choosing the place to be searched, even if it not be that delineated in the warrant.”

• “Without the illegally seized drug and drug paraphernalia, there exists no probable cause to support either the arrest warrant issued against petitioner, or the Informations filed in the trial court.”

• People v. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 604 (1998) — Applied. The case established that searching a place different from that clearly identified in the warrant is invalid; the ambiguity lies outside the instrument, and the executing officers cannot substitute the place they had in mind for the place the judge wrote in the warrant.

• Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020 — Followed. Reinforced that Section 21, RA 9165 applies to seizures made under a search warrant, not only to warrantless buy-bust operations, and that the same chain of custody requirements must be observed.

• Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 239399, March 25, 2019 — Applied. Stressed that when a search is conducted pursuant to a warrant and the police fail to secure the required witnesses without justifiable grounds, the saving clause does not apply and the seized items are inadmissible.

• Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that no search warrant issue except upon probable cause personally determined by a judge and upon a warrant particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. Applied to invalidate the search as the warrant was executed at a different place.

• Rule 126, Section 4, Rules of Court — Reiterates the requisites of probable cause and particular description. Applied in holding that the search warrant's specificity was breached.

• Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 — Mandates the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized dangerous drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. Applied to find the search fatally defective.

• Section 21(a), Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 — Specifies that for searches under a warrant, the physical inventory and photographing shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served. Applied to underscore that the procedural lapse was not remedied.

Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ.