26 People v. Salanguit MALLARI
26 People v. Salanguit MALLARI
26 People v. Salanguit MALLARI
On the second ground, the accused avers that one warrant should be issued for shabu, one
warrant should be issued for marijuana and one warrant should be for drug paraphernalia. The
Court held that one warrant would suffice since all acts were covered under Republic Act No.
6425, 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.
On the third ground, 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
contained several documents which identified the premises to be searched, to wit: 1) the
applica[on 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 deposi[on 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 loca[on 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 the house of the accused and it was really the accused 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.
2. The marijuana found was covered with newspaper and thus does not fall under the
doctrine of plain view. What was in plain view were the newspaper and not the marijuana.
Accordingly, the marijuana is inadmissible in evidence but the confisca[on is valid and must
be upheld.
3. 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. Furthermore, no tes[monies from disinterested parties were offered to corroborate the
story of the accused that the police used excessive force in enforcing the warrant.
RULING
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
confisca[on 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
confisca[on of the 1,254 grams of marijuana, as well as the 11.14 grams of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, and its disposi[on as ordered by the trial court is AFFIRMED.
NOTES
2S 2016-17 (MALLARI)