SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 133254-55. April 19, 2001]

THE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. ROBERTO SALANGUIT y KO, accused-appellant.
DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision, [1] dated January 27, 1998,
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City, finding
accused-appellant Roberto Salanguit y Ko guilty of violation of 16
of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and sentencing him
accordingly to suffer imprisonment ranging from six (6) months
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional, as maximum, and of 8 of the
same law and sentencing him for such violation to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P700,000.00.
Charges against accused-appellant for violations of R.A. No.
6425 were filed on December 28, 1995. In Criminal Case No. Q95-64357, the information alleged:
That on or about the 26th day of December 1995, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly possess and/or use 11.14 grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) a regulated drug,
without the necessary license and/or prescription therefor, in
violation of said law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
In Criminal Case No. Q-95-64358, the information charged:

That on or about the 26th day of December 1995, in Quezon City,

Philippines, the said accused not being authorized by law to
possess or use any prohibited drug, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his
custody and control 1,254 grams of Marijuana, a prohibited drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
When arraigned on May 21, 1996, accused-appellant pleaded
not guilty,[4] whereupon he was tried.
Three witnesses were presented by the prosecution: P/Insp.
Sonia S. Ludovico, forensic chemist and chief of the Physical
Science Branch of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory,
Senior Inspector Rodolfo Aguilar of the Narcotics Command, Camp
Crame, Quezon City, and PO3 Rolando Duazo of Station 10,
Kamuning, Quezon City, a field operative. The prosecution
evidence established the following:
On December 26, 1995, Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied for a
warrant[5] in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Dasmarias,
Cavite, to search the residence of accused-appellant Robert
Salanguit y Ko on Binhagan St., Novaliches, Quezon City. He
presented as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua, who testified that
as a poseur-buyer, he was able to purchase 2.12 grams
of shabu from accused-appellant. The sale took place in accusedappellants room, and Badua saw that the shabu was taken by
accused-appellant from a cabinet inside his room. The application
was granted, and a search warrant was later issued by Presiding
Judge Dolores L. Espaol.
At about 10:30 p.m. of December 26, 1995, a group of about
10 policemen, along with one civilian informer, went to the
residence of accused-appellant to serve the warrant. [6]

The police operatives knocked on accused-appellants door,

but nobody opened it. They heard people inside the house,
apparently panicking. The police operatives then forced the door
open and entered the house.[7]
After showing the search warrant to the occupants of the
house, Lt. Cortes and his group started searching the house.
[8]
They found 12 small heat-sealed transparent plastic bags
containing a white crystalline substance, a paper clip box also
containing a white crystalline substance, and two bricks of dried
leaves which appeared to be marijuana wrapped in
newsprint[9] having a total weight of approximately 1,255 grams.
[10]
A receipt of the items seized was prepared, but the accusedappellant refused to sign it.[11]
After the search, the police operatives took accused-appellant
with them to Station 10, EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City, along
with the items they had seized.[12]
PO3 Duazo requested a laboratory examination of the
confiscated evidence.[13] The white crystalline substance with a
total weight of 2.77 grams and those contained in a small box
with a total weight of 8.37 grams were found to be positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride. On the other hand, the two
bricks of dried leaves, one weighing 425 grams and the other 850
grams, were found to be marijuana.[14]
For the defense, accused-appellant testified in his own
behalf. His testimony was corroborated by his mother-in-law,
Soledad Arcano.
Accused-appellant testified that on the night of December 26,
1995, as they were about to leave their house, they heard a
commotion at the gate and on the roof of their house. Suddenly,
about 20 men in civilian attire, brandishing long firearms, climbed
over the gate and descended through an opening in the roof. [15]

When accused-appellant demanded to be shown a search

warrant, a piece of paper inside a folder was waved in front of
him. As accused-appellant fumbled for his glasses, however, the
paper was withdrawn and he had no chance to read it. [16]
Accused-appellant claimed that he was ordered to stay in one
place of the house while the policemen conducted a search,
forcibly opening cabinets and taking his bag containing money, a
licensed .45 caliber firearm, jewelry, and canned goods. [17]
The policemen left at around 12:30 a.m. of December 27,
1995, and, after putting handcuffs on accused-appellant, took him
with them to the NARCOM on EDSA, Quezon City, where accusedappellant was detained.[18]
Accused-appellants
mother-in
law,
Soledad
Arcano,
corroborated his testimony. Arcano testified that the policemen
ransacked their house, ate their food, and took away canned
goods and other valuables.[19]
After hearing, the trial court rendered its decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. In Criminal Case No. Q-95-64357, for violation of Sec. 16,
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, finding the accused
ROBERTO SALANGUIT y KO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged and he is hereby accordingly sentenced to suffer
an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of six (6) months
of arresto mayor and a maximum of four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional; and,
2. In Criminal Case No. Q-95-64358, for violation of Sec. 8,
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, finding the accused
ROBERTO SALANGUIT y KO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the

crime charged and he is hereby accordingly sentenced to

suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P700,000.00.
The accused shall further pay the costs of suit.
The 11.14 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride and the
1,254 grams of marijuana bricks are hereby confiscated and
condemned for disposition according to law. The evidence
custodian of this Court is hereby directed to turn such substances
over to the National Bureau of Investigation pursuant to law.
SO ORDERED.[20]
Hence this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THE
SEARCH WARRANT VALID
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSEDAPPELLANT FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE
HYDRO-CHLORIDE (SHABU)
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSEDAPPELLANT FOR VIOLATION 8, R.A. NO. 6425
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE
TWO (2) BRICKS OF MARIJUANA
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE
POLICEMEN USED EXCESSIVE FORCE IN ENFORCING THE
SEARCH WARRANT.
Accused-appellant is contesting his conviction on three
grounds. First, the admissibility of the shabu allegedly recovered
from his residence as evidence against him on the ground that
the warrant used in obtaining it was invalid. Second, the
admissibility in evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from

accused-appellant pursuant to the plain view doctrine. Third,

the employment of unnecessary force by the police in the
execution of the warrant.
First. Rule 126, 4 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure[21] provides that a search warrant shall not issue except
upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and
the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
In issuing a search warrant, judges must comply strictly with
the requirements of the Constitution and the Rules of Criminal
Procedure. No presumption of regularity can be invoked in aid of
the process when an officer undertakes to justify its issuance.
[22]
Nothing can justify the issuance of the search warrant unless
all the legal requisites are fulfilled.
In this case, the search warrant issued against accusedappellant reads:
SEARCH WARRANT NO. 160
For: Violation of RA 6425
SEARCH WARRANT
TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:
GREETINGS:
It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after
examining under oath SR. INSP. RODOLFO V. AGUILAR, PNP and
his witness SPO1 EDMUND M. BADUA, PNP that there is probable
cause to believe that ROBERT SALANGUIT has in his possession

and control in his premises Binhagan St., San Jose, Quezon City as
shown in Annex A, the properties to wit:
UNDETERMINED QUANTITY OF SHABU AND DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
which should be seized and brought to the undersigned.
You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search
anytime of the day/night of the premises above-described and
forthwith seize and take possession of the above-stated
properties and bring said properties to the undersigned to be
dealt with as the law directs.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND this 26th day of December 1995 at Imus,
Cavite, Philippines.
(SGD.) DOLORES L. ESPAOL
Judge
Accused-appellant assails the validity of the warrant on three
grounds: (1) that there was no probable cause to search for drug
paraphernalia; (2) that the search warrant was issued for more
than one specific offense; and (3) that the place to be searched
was not described with sufficient particularity.
Existence of Probable Cause

The warrant authorized the seizure of undetermined quantity

of shabu and drug paraphernalia. Evidence was presented
showing probable cause of the existence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu. Accused-appellant contends, however,
that the search warrant issued is void because no evidence was
presented showing the existence of drug paraphernalia and the
same should not have been ordered to be seized by the trial
court.[23]

The contention has no merit. To be sure, SPO1 Edmund Badua,

the intelligence officer who acted as a poseur-buyer, did not
testify in the proceedings for the issuance of a search warrant on
anything about drug paraphernalia. He stated:
Q

Being a member of the Intelligence and Operation

Section, NMDU, NARCOM, do you remember if you were
assigned into a monitoring or surveillance work?
-

Yes, sir.

Of what particular assignment or area were you

assigned for monitoring or surveillance?

Its within the Quezon City area particularly a house

without a number located at Binhagan St., San Jose, Quezon
City, sir.

place?

Do you know the person who occupies the specific

Yes, sir, he is ROBERT SALANGUIT @ Robert.

Are you familiar with that place?

Yes, sir, as part of my surveillance, I was able to

penetrate inside the area and established contract with
ROBERT SALANGUIT alias Robert through my friend who
introduced me to the former.

In what particular occasion did you meet ROBERT

SALANGUIT alias Robert?

When I was introduced by my friend as a good

buyer and drug pusher of shabu, sir.

Were you able to buy at that time?

Yes, sir.

How much if you can still remember the amount

involved?

I was able to buy two point twelve (2.12) grams of

shabu in the amount of Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty
(P2,750.00) pesos, sir.

Having established contact with ROBERT

SALANGUIT @ Robert, do you know where the stuff (shabu)
were being kept?

Yes, sir, inside a cabinet inside his room.

How were you able to know the place where he

kept the stuff?

When I first bought the 2.12 grams of shabu from

him, it was done inside his room and I saw that the shabu
was taken by him inside his cabinet.

Do you know who is in control of the premises?

Yes, sir, it was ROBERT SALANGUIT @ Robert.

How sure are you, that the shabu that you bought
from ROBERT SALANGUIT @ Robert is genuine shabu?

After I left the house of ROBERT SALANGUIT @

Robert, I proceeded back to our office and reported the
progress of my mission to our Chief and presented to him
the 2.12 grams of shabu I bought from the subject. Then
afterwards, our Chief formally requested the Chief PNP
Central Crime Laboratory Services, NPDC, for Technical
Analysis which yielded positive result for shabu, a regulated

drug as shown in the attached certification of PNP CLS result

No. D-414-95 dated 19 Dec. 95.
Q

Do you have anything more to add or retract from

your statement?

Yes, sir, I was offered by him (ROBERT SALANGUIT

@ Robert) that anything I wish to buy bigger quantity of
shabu, he is willing to transact to me on cash basis at his
price of One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty (P1,750.00)
pesos per gram.

Are you willing to sign your statement freely and

voluntarily?

Yes, sir.[24]

However, the fact that there was no probable cause to support

the application for the seizure of drug paraphernalia does not
warrant the conclusion that the search warrant is void. This fact
would be material only if drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by
the police. The fact is that none was taken by virtue of the search
warrant issued. If at all, therefore, the search warrant is void only
insofar as it authorized the seizure of drug paraphernalia, but it is
valid as to the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride as to
which evidence was presented showing probable cause as to its
existence. Thus, in Aday v. Superior Court,[25] the warrant
properly described two obscene books but improperly described
other articles. It was held:
Although the warrant was defective in the respects noted, it
does not follow that it was invalid as a whole. Such a conclusion
would mean that the seizure of certain articles, even though
proper if viewed separately, must be condemned merely because
the warrant was defective with respect to other articles. The
invalid portions of the warrant are severable from the

authorization relating to the named books, which formed the

principal basis of the charge of obscenity. The search for and
seizure of these books, if otherwise valid, were not rendered
illegal by the defects concerning other articles. . . . In so holding
we do not mean to suggest that invalid portions of a warrant will
be treated as severable under all circumstances. We recognize
the danger that warrants might be obtained which are essentially
general in character but as to minor items meet the requirement
of particularity, and that wholesale seizures might be made under
them, in the expectation that the seizure would in any event be
upheld as to the property specified. Such an abuse of the warrant
procedure, of course, could not be tolerated.
It would be a drastic remedy indeed if a warrant, which was
issued on probable cause and particularly describing the items to
be seized on the basis thereof, is to be invalidated in toto because
the judge erred in authorizing a search for other items not
supported by the evidence. [26] Accordingly, we hold that the first
part of the search warrant, authorizing the search of accusedappellants house for an undetermined quantity of shabu, is valid,
even though the second part, with respect to the search for drug
paraphernalia, is not.
Specificity of the Offense Charged

Accused-appellant contends that the warrant was issued for

more than one specific offense because possession or use of
methamphetamine hydrochloride and possession of drug
paraphernalia are punished under two different provisions of R.A.
No. 6425.[27] It will suffice to quote what this Court said in a similar
case to dispose of this contention:
While it is true that the caption of the search warrant states that it
is in connection with Violation of R.A. 6425, otherwise known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, it is clearly recited in the text

thereof that There is probable cause to believe that Adolfo Olaes

alias Debie and alias Baby of No. 628 Comia St., Filtration, Sta.
Rita, Olongapo City, has in their session and control and custody
of marijuana dried stalks/leaves/seeds/cigarettes and other
regulated/prohibited and exempt narcotics preparations which is
the subject of the offense stated above. Although the specific
section of the Dangerous Drugs Act is not pinpointed, there is no
question at all of the specific offense alleged to have been
committed as a basis for the finding of probable cause. The
search warrant also satisfies the requirement in the Bill of Rights
of the particularity of the description to be made of the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized. [28]
Indeed, in People v. Dichoso[29] the search warrant was also for
Violation of R.A. 6425, without specifying what provisions of the
law were violated, and it authorized the search and seizure of
dried marijuana leaves and methamphetamine hydrochloride
(shabu) and sets of paraphernalias (sic). This Court, however,
upheld the validity of the warrant:
Appellants contention that the search warrant in question was
issued for more than (1) offense, hence, in violation of Section 3,
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, is unpersuasive. He engages in
semantic juggling by suggesting that since illegal possession of
shabu, illegal possession of marijuana and illegal possession of
paraphernalia are covered by different articles and sections of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the search warrant is clearly for
more than one (1) specific offense. In short, following this theory,
there should have been three (3) separate search warrants, one
for illegal possession of shabu, the second for illegal possession of
marijuana and the third for illegal possession of
paraphernalia. This argument is pedantic. The Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972 is a special law that deals specifically with dangerous
drugs which are subsumed into prohibited and regulated
drugs and defines and penalizes categories of offenses which are

closely related or which belong to the same class or species.

Accordingly, one (1) search warrant may thus be validly issued for
the said violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. [30]
Similarly, in another case, [31] the search warrant was
captioned: For Violation of P.D. No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of
Firearms, etc.). The validity of the warrant was questioned on the
ground that it was issued without reference to any particular
provision in P.D. No. 1866, which punished several offenses. We
held, however, that while illegal possession of firearms is
penalized under 1 of P.D. No. 1866 and illegal possession of
explosives is penalized under 3 thereof, the decree is a
codification of the various laws on illegal possession of firearms,
ammunitions, and explosives which offenses are so related as to
be subsumed within the category of illegal possession of firearms,
etc. under P.D. No. 1866. Thus, only one warrant was necessary
to cover the violations under the various provisions of the said
law.
Particularity of the Place

Accused-appellant contends that the search warrant failed to

indicate the place to be searched with sufficient particularity.
This contention is without merit. As the Solicitor General
states:
. . . While the address stated in the warrant is merely Binhagan
St., San Jose, Quezon City, the trial court took note of the fact
that the records of Search Warrant Case No. 160 contained
several documents which identified the premises to be searched,
to wit: 1) the application for search warrant which stated that
the premises to be searched was located in between No. 7 and 11
at Binhagan Street, San Jose, Quezon City; 2) the deposition of
witness which described the premises as a house without a
number located at Binhagan St., San Jose, Quezon City; and 3) the

pencil sketch of the location of the premises to be searched. In

fact, the police officers who raided appellants house under the
leadership of Police Senior Inspector Rodolfo Aguilar could not
have been mistaken as Inspector Aguilar resides in the same
neighborhood in Binhagan where appellant lives and in fact
Aguilars place is at the end of appellants place in Binhagan.
Moreover, the house raided by Aguilars team is undeniably
appellants house and it was really appellant who was the
target. The raiding team even first ascertained through their
informant that appellant was inside his residence before they
actually started their operation.[32]
The rule is that a description of the place to be searched is
sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable
effort, ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched.
[33]
For example, a search warrant authorized a search of
Apartment Number 3 of a building at 83 Pleasant Street,
Malborough, Massachusetts. As it turned out, there were five
apartments in the basement and six apartments on both the
ground and top floors and that there was an Apartment Number 3
on each floor. However, the description was made determinate
by a reference to the affidavit supporting the warrant that the
apartment was occupied by the accused Morris Ferrante of 83
Pleasant Street, Malboro Mass.[34] In this case, the location of
accused-appellants house being indicated by the evidence on
record, there can be no doubt that the warrant described the
place to be searched with sufficient particularity.
In sum, we hold that with respect to the seizure of shabu from
accused-appellants residence, Search Warrant No. 160 was
properly issued, such warrant being founded on probable cause
personally determined by the judge under oath or affirmation of
the deposing witness and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the things to be seized.

Second. The search warrant authorized the seizure of

methamphetamine
hydrochloride
or shabu but
not
marijuana. However, seizure of the latter drug is being justified
on the ground that the drug was seized within the plain view of
the searching party. This is contested by accused-appellant.
Under the plain view doctrine, unlawful objects within the
plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to
have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in
evidence.[35] For this doctrine to apply, there must be: (a) prior
justification; (b) inadvertent discovery of the evidence; and (c)
immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before the police.
[36]
The question is whether these requisites were complied with
by the authorities in seizing the marijuana in this case.
Prior Justification and Discovery by Inadvertence

Because the location of the shabu was indicated in the warrant

and thus known to the police operatives, it is reasonable to
assume that the police found the packets of the shabu first. Once
the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed, the
plain view doctrine can no longer provide any basis for
admitting the other items subsequently found. As has been
explained:
What the plain view cases have in common is that the police
officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in
the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of
evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to
supplement the prior justification whether it be a warrant for
another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or
some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with
a search directed against the accused and permits the
warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original
justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to

the police that they have evidence before them; the plain view
doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search
from one object to another until something incriminating at last
emerges.[37]
The only other possible justification for an intrusion by the
police is the conduct of a search pursuant to accused-appellants
lawful arrest for possession of shabu. However, a search incident
to a lawful arrest is limited to the person of the one arrested and
the premises within his immediate control. [38] The rationale for
permitting such a search is to prevent the person arrested from
obtaining a weapon to commit violence, or to reach for
incriminatory evidence and destroy it.
The police failed to allege in this case the time when the
marijuana was found, i.e., whether prior to, or contemporaneous
with, the shabu subject of the warrant, or whether it was
recovered on accused-appellants person or in an area within his
immediate control. Its recovery, therefore, presumably during the
search conducted after the shabu had been recovered from the
cabinet, as attested to by SPO1 Badua in his depostion, was
invalid.
Apparent Illegality of the Evidence

The marijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint. There was

no apparent illegality to justify their seizure. This case is similar
to People. v. Musa[39] in which we declared inadmissible the
marijuana recovered by NARCOM agents because the said drugs
were contained in a plastic bag which gave no indication of its
contents. We explained:
Moreover, when the NARCOM agents saw the plastic bag hanging
in one corner of the kitchen, they had no clue as to its
contents. They had to ask the appellant what the bag
contained. When the appellant refused to respond, they opened

it and found the marijuana. Unlike Ker v. California, where the

marijuana was visible to the police officers eyes, the NARCOM
agents in this case could not have discovered the inculpatory
nature of the contents of the bag had they not forcibly opened
it. Even assuming then, that the NARCOM agents inadvertently
came across the plastic bag because it was within their plain
view, what may be said to be the object in their plain view was
just the plastic bag and not the marijuana. The incriminating
nature of the contents of the plastic bag was not immediately
apparent from the plain view of said object. It cannot be
claimed that the plastic bag clearly betrayed its contents,
whether by its distinctive configuration, is transparency, or
otherwise, that its contents are obvious to an observer. [40]
No presumption of regularity may be invoked by an officer in
aid of the process when he undertakes to justify an encroachment
of rights secured by the Constitution. [41] In this case, the
marijuana allegedly found in the possession of accused-appellant
was in the form of two bricks wrapped in newsprint. Not being in
a transparent container, the contents wrapped in newsprint could
not have been readily discernible as marijuana. Nor was there
mention of the time or manner these items were discovered.
Accordingly, for failure of the prosecution to prove that the seizure
of the marijuana without a warrant was conducted in accordance
with the plain view doctrine, we hold that the marijuana is
inadmissible in evidence against accused-appellant. However,
the confiscation of the drug must be upheld.
Third. Accused-appellant claims that undue and unnecessary
force was employed by the searching party in effecting the raid.
Rule 126, 7 of
Procedure[42] provides:

the

Revised

Rules

on

Criminal

Right to break door or window to effect search. The officer, if

refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving
notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or
inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or
anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any
person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.
Accused-appellants claim that the policemen had clambered
up the roof of his house to gain entry and had broken doors and
windows in the process is unsupported by reliable and competent
proof. No affidavit or sworn statement of disinterested persons,
like the barangay officials or neighbors, has been presented by
accused-appellant to attest to the truth of his claim.
In contrast, Aguilar and Duanos claim that they had to use
some force in order to gain entry cannot be doubted. The
occupants of the house, especially accused-appellant, refused to
open the door despite the fact that the searching party knocked
on the door several times. Furthermore, the agents saw the
suspicious movements of the people inside the house. These
circumstances justified the searching partys forcible entry into
the house, founded as it is on the apprehension that the
execution of their mission would be frustrated unless they do so.
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. Q-95-64357, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City, finding
accused-appellant Roberto Salanguit y Ko guilty of possession of
illegal drugs under 16 of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer
a prison term ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, and four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional,as maximum, and ordering the confiscation of 11.14
grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride is AFFIRMED.

In Criminal Case No. Q-95-64358, the decision of the same

court finding accused-appellant Roberto Salanguit y Ko guilty of
possession of prohibited drugs under 8 of R.A. No. 6425, as
amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay a fine of P700,000.00 is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE and accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime
charged. However, the confiscation of the 1,254 grams of
marijuana, as well as the 11.14 grams of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, and its disposition as ordered by the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ., concur.