26 People v. Salanguit MALLARI

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

CRIMPRO RULE 126

Title G.R. No. 133254-55


PEOPLE v. SALANGUIT Date: April 19, 2001
Ponente: MENDOZA, J.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF- ROBERTO SALANGUIT, accused-appellant
APPELLEE,
Nature of the case: This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of 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.
FACTS
On December 26, 1995, Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied for a warrant 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 accused-appellants room, and Badua
saw that the shabu was taken by accused-appellant from a cabinet inside his room. The
applica[on was granted, and a search warrant was later issued by Presiding Judge Dolores L.
Espaol.
Prosecution Version: 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.
The police operatives knocked on accused-appellants door, but nobody opened it. They
heard people inside the house, apparently panicking. The police opera[ves then forced the
door open and entered the house.
After showing the search warrant to the occupants of the house, Lt. Cortes and his group
started searching the house. They found 12 small heat-sealed transparent plas[c 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 having a total weight of approximately 1,255 grams. A receipt of the items seized
was prepared, but the accused-appellant refused to sign it.
Version of Defense: 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 acre, brandishing long firearms, climbed over the gate and descended
through an opening in the roof.
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. 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.
Aftermath: After the search, the accused together with the confiscated contraband were
taken to the police sta[on. The RTC convicted the accused of viola[on of Sec. 16, Republic
Act No. 6425 and to suffer the penalty of 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 in viola[on of Sec. 8 of the same law and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reculsion perpetua and a fine of Php 700,000.00
ISSUE/S
1. Whether or not the Search Warrant issued is valid.
2. Whether or not the marijuana seized falls under the plain view doctrine.
3. Whether or not the force used in the raid was necessary.
RATIO
1. Accused assailed 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.
On the first ground, it was testified by SPO1 Edmund Badua, the intelligence officer who
acted as a poseur-buyer that when he went inside the house of the accused, he saw the
accused get the shabu in the cabinet which is in the room of the accused. Hence, there was
probable cause as to the shabu but no testimony was offered in regards to the drug
paraphernalia. This does not mean however that the search warrant as a whole is void or
invalid. Accordingly, it was held that the first part of the search warrant, authorizing the search
of accused-appellants house for an undetermined quan[ty of shabu, is valid, even though the
second part, with respect to the search for drug paraphernalia, is not.

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)

You might also like