G.R. No. 109633
July 20, 1994
Facts
Upon application of a police officer, the Judge issued in the morning of September 4, 1991 a search warrant indicating the seizure of an “undetermined quantity of Methamphetamine Hydrocholoride commonly known as shabu and its paraphernalias” in the premises of Del Rosario’s house. However, the search warrant was not implemented immediately due to the lack of police personnel to form the raiding team.
In the evening of the same day, the police raiding team were finally formed and it was agreed that PO1 de Luna will act as poseur buyer. Specifically, PO1 de Luna will buy shabu from Del Rosario’s house and upon his return, they will implement the search warrant. After PO1 de Luna allegedly perfected the sale, he went back to the police station to inform them. Thereupon, the raiding team went to the house of appellant to implement the search warrant. After the police entered the house, it was the only time they call upon a witness to join the search. Therefore, the policemen may have ample time to plant the shabu.
Respondent was convicted by the trial court of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition as well as Illegal Sale of Regulated Drugs. Hence, this petition.
Issue
Whether or not the officers can seize firearms not mentioned in the search warrant.
Held
No. The Constitution (Section 2, Article III) and the Rules of Court (Section 3, Rule 126) specifically mandate that the search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. Moreover, items illegally seized cannot be admitted in evidence [Section 3(2), Article 3, 1987 Constitution)
In this case, the search warrant implemented by the raiding party authorized only the search and seizure of “. . . the described quantity of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as shabu and its paraphernalia” and not of the firearms. With that, the search warrant provides no authority for the police officers to seize the firearm which was not mentioned in the search warrant. Neither may it be maintained that the gun was seized in the course of an arrest, for as earlier observed, accused-appellant’s arrest was far from regular and legal. Said firearm, having been illegally seized, the same is not admissible in evidence.
Hence, the accused is acquitted from the crime of illegal possession of firearm since there is a total absence of evidence to support the charge as the illegally-seized firearm cannot be admitted as evidence.
Search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime.