Motion To Suppress Evidence - Oraller

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

8th Judicial Region
BRANCH 6
Tacloban City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SEARCH WARRANT NR. 01-2019

Plaintiff for:
-versus- VIOL. OF SEC. 5 & 1 1,ART. II,

RA 9165
Brad Smith, resident of Brgy.
Old Road, Sagkahan, Tacloban City
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION
TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT
OR SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
RESPONDENT, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court most

respectfully avers: THAT---
1. This Honorable Court issued Search Warrant Nr. 01-20191 on 24

July 2019 upon application of SPO4 CIPRIANO V. LABANDIA and his
witnesses, who claim that there is a probable cause to believe that Viol. of
Sec. 5 & 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165 has been committed and is being
committed, and that it is believed that respondent has in his unlawful
possession and control “shabu” which he is keeping and concealing inside
his house to be found inside his pants hang on the wall inside his
bedroom, in which suspected drug pusher presently resides.
2. On 2 August 2019, PO1 RILLE ROBIN submitted to this court a 1st

Indorsement2, returning Search Warrant Nr. 01-2019, with the attached
Receipt of Property Seized3 dated 2 August 2019.
3. The Receipt of Property Seized indicates as Item “F” one (1) pc.
Plastic box used as container of confiscated suspected shabu taken from the
residence of BRAD SMITH.
4. The search of the suspect’s house was conducted in violation of the

Rules of Court, Rule 126, Sections 4, 8 and 11.
1
Annex A – Search Warrant Nr. 01-2019 dated 24 July 2019
2
Annex B – 1st Indorsement dated 2 August 2019 by PO1 Joseph Moreno
3
Annex C – Receipt of Property Seized dated 2 August 2019
Page 1 of 4
5. The search violated Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, as
the raiders searched places other than what was particularly described in the
search warrant, i.e. “shabu which he is keeping and concealing inside his
house to be found inside his pants hanging on the wall inside his bedroom”.
The joint affidavit4 of the two witnesses, ROMANO BERNARD and KIT
ABANILLA will show that the suspected shabu were found inside a playing
card box inside a drawer of an Orocan plastic cabinet, not inside the pants of
the suspect hanging on the wall inside his bedroom.

the search of the bedroom was made without the presence of the lawful
occupant – the wife of the suspect – even if she was in the house during the
search. [Pp. vs. Gesmundo, 219 SCRA 743] It shall be noted that a
policeman earlier entered the bedroom without the presence of the wife or
the two Kagawad members. The joint affidavit of Kagawad Tupaz and
Jovero, as well as the affidavit 5of Josefina Hunt, the wife of the suspect,
will bear testimony of such fact. The law imposes upon the person making
the search the duty that “no search of a house, room, or any other premises
shall be made except in the presence of the lawful owner thereof or any
member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion.”
the officer seizing the property under the warrant failed to give a detailed
receipt for the same to the lawful occupant – DESIREE SMITH, nor did he
leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property. The law
imposes upon the person making the search the duty to issue a detailed
receipt for the property seized. [Pp. vs. Gesmundo, ibid]
8. There is no truth in the Return of Search Warrant that “suspected

drug pusher BRAD SMITH managed to escape and elude the apprehension
prior to the arrival of the raiding team”. There is no factual or legal basis
for the raiding team to speculate or fabricate such fact as they never even
saw the shadow of BRAD SMITH prior to the raid, much less during the
raid itself. One fact is indubitable – that the raiding team has no evidence to
prove that the suspect was at that time violating Sections 5 and 11 of RA
9165.
9. No criminal action has yet been instituted against the suspect in

another court.
10. Upon further perusal of the records of the case, the raiding team
attached a P500 bill with Serial Nr. FH049465 which was certified true
copy by Fiscal Percy Jackson on 25 July 2019, and which was allegedly
recovered from the bedroom of the respondent on August 2, 2019. There is
nothing in the records of an actual sale of shabu with the use of said marked
4
Annex D – Joint affidavit of Nilo Tupaz & Jose Jovero dated 9 September 2019
5
Annex E – Affidavit of Celina V. Asis dated 9 September 2019
Page 2 of 4
money, either on July 25 or on the actual raid on August 2 itself. As it
appears, the marked money is planted evidence. What only appears in the
records is the common statement made by the applicant and his witnesses
that on July 21, they had a test buy of shabu worth P300.00 only. So, how
will the raiding explain that the marked P500 bill was the proceeds of an
actual sale, which they certified before Fiscal Jackson on July 25, in the
bedroom of the respondent on August 2, 2019 – when they said in their 1 st
Indorsement that the respondent managed to escape and elude the
apprehension PRIOR to the arrival of the raiding team. (emphasis ours)
11. On August 4, 2019, P/Insp. KODIK ASNO filed a motion to

withdraw exhibits; on the same date, the Court issued an Order to release to
movant said exhibits, which were likewise received by SPO1 CHE RIVERA
on same date.
12. Pursuant to Sec. 21 of RA 9165, the apprehending team which has

now custody and disposition of the alleged confiscated suspected shabu, has
24 hours within seizure of said items to submit the same to the PNP Crime
Lab for examination, and another 24 hours for the Crime Lab after receipt of
suspected shabu to issue a certification of the forensic laboratory
examination results, and after the filing of the criminal case, the court within
72 hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the seized suspected shabu.
13. It is well noted that more than a month has lapsed since the raid on
August 2, 2019 and there is no showing that the apprehending team has
complied with the mandatory provisions of Sec. 21 of RA 9165, which will
further render the alleged confiscated suspected shabu inadmissible in
evidence.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

the Search Warrant Nr. 01-2019 be quashed for patent violations of Rule
126, Sections 4, 8 and 11, of the Rules of Court, as well as Sec. 21 of RA
9165.
It is further prayed of the Honorable Court to suppress evidence

obtained from this invalid search.
Such other relief and remedies in law and equity are likewise prayed
for.
SO PRAYED. May 27, 2020 at Tacloban City.
Counsel for the Respondent
GRACELLE MAE O. ORALLER

NOTARY PUBLIC for Tacloban City
My Commission expires December 31, 2020
IBP No. 140142, 1/2/2020, Tacloban City
Page 3 of 4
PTR No. 1234567 2/2/2020, Tacloban City
nd
2 Floor, Dynasty Building, Zamora St., Tacloban City
NOTICE OF HEARING
The CLERK OF COURT

RTC BR. 6, Tacloban City
Attention: The Public Prosecutor

Tacloban City
Greetings:
Please submit the foregoing Motion for the consideration and

approval of the Honorable Court on June 2, 2020 at 8:30 AM or soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard on the urgent matter.
GRACELLE MAE O. ORALLER
COPY FURNISHED:
Hon. Edgardo Angara

Public Prosecutor
Hilongos, Leyte
SPO4 CIPRIANO V. LABANDIA

Applicant
Deputy Chief, TCPS-AIDSOTF/PDEA
PNP Tacloban City Police Station
Tacloban City
Page 4 of 4

Motion To Suppress Evidence - Oraller

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Suppress Evidence - Oraller

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Suppress Evidence - Oraller

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SEARCH WARRANT NR. 01-2019

-versus- VIOL. OF SEC. 5 & 1 1,ART. II,

RESPONDENT, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court most

1. This Honorable Court issued Search Warrant Nr. 01-20191 on 24

2. On 2 August 2019, PO1 RILLE ROBIN submitted to this court a 1st

4. The search of the suspect’s house was conducted in violation of the

6. The search violated Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, as

8. There is no truth in the Return of Search Warrant that “suspected

9. No criminal action has yet been instituted against the suspect in

11. On August 4, 2019, P/Insp. KODIK ASNO filed a motion to

12. Pursuant to Sec. 21 of RA 9165, the apprehending team which has

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

It is further prayed of the Honorable Court to suppress evidence

SO PRAYED. May 27, 2020 at Tacloban City.

Counsel for the Respondent

GRACELLE MAE O. ORALLER

The CLERK OF COURT

Attention: The Public Prosecutor

Please submit the foregoing Motion for the consideration and

GRACELLE MAE O. ORALLER

Hon. Edgardo Angara

SPO4 CIPRIANO V. LABANDIA

You might also like