Tambasen vs. People

A search warrant that lists multiple specific offenses in its caption is a "scatter-shot warrant" and is void ab initio. Furthermore, the seizure of items not described in the warrant constitutes an illegal search and seizure, rendering such evidence inadmissible and necessitating the return of the property.

On August 31, 1988, police applied for and obtained Search Warrant No. 365 from the Municipal Trial Circuit Court (MTCC) of Bacolod City, authorizing the search of petitioner Leon Tambasen's house for firearms, explosives, and subversive documents. On September 9, 1988, police executed the warrant and seized various items, including P14,000.00 in cash, radio equipment, and documents, which were not among the items specified in the warrant. Petitioner challenged the legality of the seizure and sought the return of his property.

• Issuance and Execution of the Search Warrant: P/Sgt. Flumar Natuel applied for a search warrant alleging petitioner possessed firearms, explosives, and subversive documents. Search Warrant No. 365 was issued, listing these specific items. During execution, police seized cash (P14,000.00), radio equipment, and papers not mentioned in the warrant.
• Post-Seizure Motions and Orders: Petitioner filed motions for the return of the seized articles. The MTCC, finding the seizure of the cash illegal, ordered its return. The Solicitor General then filed a certiorari petition before the RTC to nullify this MTCC order.
• RTC Ruling and Subsequent Events: The RTC granted the certiorari petition, holding that the MTCC had exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on the admissibility of evidence, a matter for the trial court in a criminal case. It ordered the money held in custodia legis. During the pendency of the Supreme Court petition, petitioner was arrested and charged with subversion, but the information was later quashed and petitioner was dropped from the preliminary investigation. The Anti-Subversion Law (R.A. No. 1700) was subsequently repealed.

• Invalidity of the Search Warrant: Petitioner argued that the search warrant was invalid because it covered three distinct offenses (illegal possession of firearms, explosives, and subversive documents), violating Section 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which prohibits a warrant for more than one specific offense.
• Illegal Seizure: Petitioner maintained that the seizure of items not listed in the warrant (the cash and radio equipment) was illegal, as the Constitution requires a warrant to particularly describe the things to be seized.
• Fishing Expedition: Petitioner claimed the police were on a "fishing expedition" because the criminal complaint was filed only after the search.

• Custodia Legis Doctrine: Respondents, through the Solicitor General, argued that even if the seizure was invalid, the seized items should remain in custodia legis pending the determination of the legality of the seizure and the resolution of the criminal complaint, citing precedents like Alih v. Castro and Roan v. Gonzales.
• Potential Confiscation: Respondents contended that if the money was found to be earmarked for subversive activities, it could be confiscated pursuant to Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, thus justifying its retention.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: Whether Search Warrant No. 365 is void for violating the rule against issuing a warrant for more than one specific offense.
• Legality of the Seizure: Whether the seizure of items not specified in the search warrant constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure.
• Right to Return of Property: Whether petitioner is entitled to the return of the seized articles, particularly the P14,000.00 cash, given the subsequent dismissal of criminal charges and repeal of the relevant law.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: The search warrant is void. The caption listed violations of two special laws (P.D. No. 1866 and R.A. No. 1700), making it a prohibited "scatter-shot warrant" under Section 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• Legality of the Seizure: The seizure was illegal. The police acted beyond the warrant's authority by taking items not described therein, violating the constitutional requirement of particularity (Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution). The presumption of regularity in official duty cannot override constitutionally protected rights.
• Right to Return of Property: Petitioner is entitled to the return of all seized articles. With the quashal of the criminal information, the dropping of petitioner from the preliminary investigation, and the repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law, no legal basis exists to retain the property in custodia legis. The exclusionary rule (Section 3(2), Article III, Constitution) renders evidence from an illegal seizure inadmissible.

• The "Scatter-Shot Warrant" Doctrine — A search warrant that authorizes the search for evidence of multiple, distinct offenses is void for being overly broad and violating the rule that a warrant shall issue only for one specific offense. This prevents general exploratory searches.
• The Particularity Requirement for Searches and Seizures — The Constitution mandates that a search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. This limits the discretion of law enforcement, prevents unreasonable seizures, and protects the sanctity of the home. Seizure of items not described is illegal.
• The Exclusionary Rule (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree) — Evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

• "Search Warrant No. 365 was therefore a 'scatter-shot warrant' and totally null and void." — This succinctly states the fatal defect of the warrant, establishing a clear precedent against warrants covering multiple offenses.
• "Zeal in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the Constitution itself abhors." — This passage underscores that law enforcement objectives cannot justify constitutional violations.

• People v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 101 (1992) — Cited as controlling authority that a search warrant for more than one specific offense is a "scatter-shot warrant" and void.
• Corro v. Lising, 137 SCRA 541 (1985) — Applied to explain the purpose of the particularity requirement in search warrants: to limit seizures to described items and prevent abuse.
• Alih v. Castro, 151 SCRA 279 (1987) and Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (1986) — Distinguished. The Court noted these cases were cited by respondents but were inapplicable given the final dismissal of charges and repeal of the law, which removed the basis for custodia legis.

• Section 3, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court — Prohibits the issuance of a search warrant for more than one specific offense. The warrant in this case violated this rule.
• Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that a warrant particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. The seizure of undeclared items violated this provision.
• Section 3(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution — The exclusionary rule, which mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal search is inadmissible.

• Justice Teodoro R. Padilla
• Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
• Justice Jose C. Quirino (Ponente)
• Justice Jose A. R. Bellosillo
• Justice Santiago M. Kapunan

N/A — The decision was unanimous.