THE Supreme Court has acquitted a woman of drug-related charges due to a defective search warrant authorities used in apprehending her.
In a 16-page decision promulgated on April 21 but only made public recently, the SC’s second division, through Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, held that in order for a search warrant to be valid, it must clearly define the location or place to be searched; otherwise, it violates the constitutional right against unlawful searches and seizures.
The decision concerned the case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia in violation of Republic Act 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 filed against Marife De Jesus after she and six others were arrested by operatives of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency on November 8, 2017 in Barangay Olympia, Makati City.
After presenting the search warrant issued by Makati RTC Branch 150 Presiding Judge Elmo Alameda, the PDEA officers began their search on the 2nd floor of the compound.
The PDEA operatives recovered “50 pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets” and a pink coin purse, which had inside “two pieces of medium heat-sealed transparent sachets, both containing shabu, and several strips of aluminum foil.”
They also recovered on the ground floor of the compound a pouch containing two medium and 11 small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of shabu, and several rolled aluminum foils.
De Jesus and her co-accused later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, after a drug test.
The RTC convicted De Jesus and sentenced her to life imprisonment as it held that the prosecution proved the elements of the crime of maintaining a drug den, particularly that she owned the house where the illegal drugs and paraphernalia were recovered, and dangerous drugs were being used in her house.
Some of her co-accused were acquitted.
The Court of Appeals partially granted De Jesus’ appeal seeking to reverse her conviction by sustaining only her conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia.
This prompted De Jesus to elevate the case to the SC.
The SC ruled in her favor and declared that the search warrant was invalid.
“In this case, an examination of Search Warrant No.17-039 reveals that it failed to describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity. To recall, the place indicated in the search warrant pertained to the residence of Cesar Oliman, Marife Evangelista Oliman, Alias Ely and John and Jane Does located at 9238 Oliman Compound, Pateros St., Brgy. Olympia, Makati City.
“However, it was revealed during trial that address 9238 does not appear on the premises searched by the PDEA officers but belonged to a house beside the Oliman Compound,” the SC held.
“Notably, the lack of particular details in the search warrant failed to distinguish the house subject of the search from the house with address 9238. With the inadequacy in the description in the search warrant, uncertainty would arise as to which of these structures would be the subject of the search,” it added.
The SC also noted that one of the PDEA officers admitted that the Oliman Compound is a property consisting of three different houses and that even though only one was searched, the lack of particularity had the effect of permitting the PDEA officers to search all structures within the compound.
The SC said this violates the Constitution, which requires a valid search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched, and its description should be sufficient for the officer serving the warrant to ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the area.
Considering that the search warrant is invalid for “its failure to meet the standards imposed by the Constitution,” the SC held that the search conducted pursuant to it was also invalid and all items seized are deemed inadmissible in court.
“Thus, without the dangerous drugs illegally seized from the accused-appellant, there is no evidence to support her conviction,” the SC added.
Concurring with the decision were Associate Justices Amy Lazaro-Javier, Mario Lopez, Jhosep Lopez, and Antonio Kho Jr.
