People vs Francisco [G.R. No. 129035] Case Digest

 

People vs Francisco

[G.R. No. 129035]

 

Facts:

            Federico Verona and his live-in girlfriend, accused-appellant Annabelle Francisco, were placed under surveillance after the police confirmed, through a test-buy operation, that they were engaged in selling shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride. SPO2 Teneros and SPO4 Alberto San Juan applied for a search warrant before Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila to authorize them to search the premises at 122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City.

            Accused-appellant Annabelle Francisco, who was then nine months pregnant, was resting inside the second floor master’s bedroom of their two- storey apartment at No. 120 M. Hizon Street, Caloocan City, when she heard a loud bang downstairs as if somebody forcibly opened the front door. Eight policemen suddenly entered her bedroom and conducted a search for about an hour.

            Accused-appellant filed a motion to quash the search warrant asserting that she and her live-in partner Federico Verona had been leasing an apartment unit at No. 120 M. Hizon Street, District 2, Caloocan City, Metro Manila, since 1995 up to the present as certified by the owner of the apartment unit.

 

 

Issue:

            Whether or not place searched be enlarge or amplify by the police.

 

Held:

            No.

 

Ratio:

            For the validity of a search warrant, the Constitution requires that there be a particular description of "the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." The rule is that a description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or description known to the locality that leads the officer unerringly to it satisfies the constitutional requirement.

            Specifically, the requisites for the issuance of a valid search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such presence is determined personally by the judge; (3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

            The absence of any of these requisites will cause the downright nullification of the search warrants.

            The prevailing circumstances in the case at bar are definitely different from those in Veloso. At first glance, the description of the place to be searched in the warrant seems to be sufficient. However, from the application for a search warrant as well as the search warrant itself, the police officer serving the warrant cannot, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended precisely because it was wrongly described as No. 122, although it may have been located on the same street as No. 120. Even the description of the house by police asset Baradilla referred to that house located at No. 122 M. Hizon St., not at No. 120 M. Hizon St.

The particularity of the place described is essential in the issuance of search warrants to avoid the exercise by the enforcing officers of discretion. Hence, the trial court erred in refusing to nullify the actions of the police officers who were perhaps swayed by their alleged knowledge of the place. The controlling subject of search warrants is the place indicated in the warrant itself and not the place identified by the police.