3/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 405

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tiu Won Chua

*
G.R. No. 149878. July 1, 2003.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- appellee, vs. TIU WON

CHUA a.k.a. “Timothy Tiu” and QUI YALING y CHUA a.k.a. “Sun
Tee Sy y Chua”, accused-appellants.

Constitutional Law; Searches and Seizures; Four requisites for a valid

warrant; A mistake in the identification of the owner of the place does not
invalidate the warrant provided the place to be searched is properly
described.—There are only four requisites for a valid warrant, i.e.: (1) it
must be issued upon “probable cause”; (2) probable cause must be
determined personally by the judge; (3) such judge must examine under oath
or

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

281

VOL. 405, JULY 1, 2003 281

People vs. Tiu Won Chua

affirmation the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; and (4) the
warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized. As correctly argued by the Solicitor General, a
mistake in the name of the person to be searched does not invalidate the
warrant, especially since in this case, the authorities had personal
knowledge of the drug-related activities of the accused. In fact, a “John
Doe” warrant satisfies the requirements so long as it contains a descriptio
personae such as will enable the officer to identify the accused. We have
also held that a mistake in the identification of the owner of the place does
not invalidate the warrant provided the place to be searched is properly
described.
Same; Same; Same; It is mandatory that for the search to be valid, it
must be directed at the place particularly described in the warrant.—We
affirm, however, the illegality of the search conducted on the car, on the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3d498e9c3c69ca003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
3/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 405

ground that it was not part of the description of the place to be searched
mentioned in the warrant. It is mandatory that for the search to be valid, it
must be directed at the place particularly described in the warrant.
Moreover, the search of the car was not incidental to a lawful arrest. To be
valid, such warrantless search must be limited to that point within the reach
or control of the person arrested, or that which may furnish him with the
means of committing violence or of escaping. In this case, appellants were
arrested inside the apartment, whereas the car was parked a few meters
away from the building.
Same; Admissions; Admissions, provided they are voluntary, can be
used against appellants because it is fair to presume that they correspond
with the truth, and it is their fault if they do not.—An admission is an act or
declaration of a party as to the existence of a relevant fact which may be
used in evidence against him. These admissions, provided they are
voluntary, can be used against appellants because it is fair to presume that
they correspond with the truth, and it is their fault if they do not.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Requisites for prosecution of
illegal possession of a dangerous drug; Mere possession of a regulated drug
without legal authority is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act.—In a
prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that
(1) appellants were in possession of an item or an object identified to be a
prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law,
and (3) the appellants were freely and consciously aware of being in
possession of the drug. We also note that the crime under consideration is
malum prohibitum, hence, lack of criminal intent or good faith does not
exempt appellants from criminal liability. Mere possession of a regulated
drug without legal authority is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act.

282

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tiu Won Chua

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Br.

27.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
          Grajo T. Albano and Teresita Dizon Capulong for accused-
appellants.

PUNO, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court

(RTC) of Manila, Branch 27, convicting appellants Tiu Won Chua
a.k.a. Timothy Tiu (Tiu Won) and Qui Yaling y Chua a.k.a. Sun Tee
Sy y Chua (Qui Yaling) for violation of Section 16, Article III of
Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
Appellants were charged with the crime of illegal possession of a
regulated drug, i.e., methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3d498e9c3c69ca003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
3/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 405

known as “shabu,” in an information which reads:

“The undersigned accuses TIU WON CHUA aka “Timothy Tiu” and QUI
YALING Y CHUA aka “Sun Tee Sy Y Chua” of violation of Section 16,
Article III in relation to Section 2 (e-2), Article I of Republic Act No. 6425,
as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 179 and as further amended by
Republic Act No. 7659, committed as follows:
That on or about the 3rd day of October 1998, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused without being authorized by law to possess or
use any regulated drug, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, knowingly
and jointly have in their possession and under their custody and control the
following, to wit:

A sealed plastic bag containing two three four point five (234.5) grams of white
crystalline substance;
Four (4) separate sealed plastic bags containing six point two two four three
(6.2243) grams of white crystalline substance;
Sixteen (16) separate sealed plastic bags containing twenty point three six seven
three (20.3673) grams of white crystalline substance; or a total of 261.0916 grams,
and;
An improvised tooter with traces of crystalline substance

known as “SHABU” containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a

regulated drug, without the corresponding license or prescription thereof.

283

VOL. 405, JULY 1, 2003 283

People vs. Tiu Won Chua

1
Contrary to law.”

During arraignment, a plea of not guilty was entered. Appellants,

with the assistance of counsel, and the prosecution stipulated on the
following facts:

1. The authenticity of the following documents:

a. The letter of Police Senior Inspector Angelo Martin of

WPD, District Intelligence Division, United Nations
Avenue, Ermita, Manila, dated October 12, 1998, to the
Director of the NBI requesting the latter to conduct a
laboratory examination of the specimen mentioned therein;
b. The Certification issued by Forensic Chemist Loreto Bravo
of the NBI, dated October 13, 1998, to the effect that the
specimen mentioned and enumerated therein gave positive
results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, Exhibit “B”;
and
c. Dangerous Drug Report No. 98-1200 issued by Forensic
Chemist Bravo, dated October 13, 1998, to the effect that
the specimen mentioned therein gave positive results for
methamphetamine hydrochloride;
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3d498e9c3c69ca003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
3/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 405

2. The existence of one plastic bag containing 234.5 grams of

methamphetamine hydrochloride, Exhibit “D”; four (4)
plastic sachets also containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride with a total net weight of 6.2243 grams,
Exhibits “E”, “E-1”, “E-2” and “E-3”; additional 16 plastic
sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride with a
total net weight of 20.3673 grams, Exhibits “F”, “F-1” to
“F-15”, and one improvised tooter with a length of 8 inches
more or less and with a red plastic band, Exhibit “G”;
3. Forensic Chemist Loreto Bravo has no personal knowledge
as to the source of the regulated drug in question; and
4. Tiu Won Chua and Qui Yaling y Chua as stated in the
information
2
are the true and correct names of the two
accused.

The witnesses presented by the prosecution were SPO1 Anthony de

Leon, PO2 Artemio Santillan and PO3 Albert Amurao. Their
testimonies show that the police authorities, acting on an
information that drug-related activities were going on at the HCL
Building, 1025 Masangkay St., Binondo, Manila, surveyed the place
on October 2, 3, 4 and 5, 1998. At about 10 p.m. of October 6, they

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 12-13.

2 Original Records, p. 44.

284

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tiu Won Chua

conducted a test-buy operation, together with a Chinese-speaking

asset. They were able to buy P2,000.00 worth of substance from
appellants, which, upon examination by the PNP crime 3
laboratory,
proved positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Nonetheless,
they did not immediately arrest the suspects but applied for a
warrant to search Unit 4-B of HCL Building, 1025 Masangkay St.,
Binondo, Manila. Their application to search the unit supposedly
owned by “Timothy Tiu” was granted by Judge Ramon 4
Makasiar of
Branch 35 of the RTC of Manila on October 9. Armed with the
warrant, they proceeded to the place and learned that Tiu Won was
not inside the building. They waited outside but Tiu Won did not
come. After several stakeouts, they were able to implement the
warrant on October 12. Failing to get the cooperation of the
barangay officials, they requested the presence of the building
coordinator, Noel Olarte, and his wife, Joji, who acted as witnesses.
During the enforcement of the warrant, there were three (3)
persons inside the apartment, namely, appellants Tiu Won and Qui
Yaling, and a housemaid. The search was conducted on the sala and
in the three (3) bedrooms of Unit 4-B. On top of a table inside the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3d498e9c3c69ca003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
3/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 405

master’s bedroom, one (1) big pack, containing 234.5 grams of

shabu, was found inside a black leather man’s handbag supposedly
owned by Tin Won, while sixteen (16) small packs of shabu
weighing 20.3673 grams were found inside a lady’s handbag
allegedly owned by Qui Yaling. Also contained in the inventory
were the following items: an improvised tooter,5 a weighing scale, an
improvised burner and one rolled tissue paper. The authorities also
searched a Honda Civic car bearing Plate No. WCP 157, parked
along Masangkay Street, registered in the name of the wife of Tiu
Won and found four (4) plastic bags containing 6.2243 grams of
shabu, which were likewise confiscated. A gun in the possession of
Tiu Won was also seized and made subject of a separate criminal
case.
The defense presented appellants Tiu Won and Qui Yaling. They
denied that Timothy Tiu and Tiu Won Chua are one and the same
person. They presented papers and documents to prove that
appellant is Tiu Won Chua and not Timothy Tiu, as stated in the

_______________

3 Id., at pp. 39-40.

4 Id., at p. 11.
5 Id., at p. 14.

285

VOL. 405, JULY 1, 2003 285

People vs. Tiu Won Chua

search warrant. Tiu Won also claimed that he does not live in the
apartment subject of the search warrant, alleging that he is married
to a certain Emily Tan and is a resident of No. 864 Alvarado St.,
Binondo, Manila. Nonetheless, he admitted that his co-appellant,
Qui Yaling, is his mistress with whom he has two children. Qui
Yaling admitted being the occupant of the apartment, but alleged
that she only occupied one room, while two other persons, a certain
Lim and a certain Uy, occupied the other rooms. Both appellants
denied that they were engaged in the sale or possession of shabu.
They asserted that they are in the jewelry business and that at the
time the search and arrest were made, the third person, whom the
prosecution identified as a housemaid, was actually a certain Chin,
who was there to look at some of the pieces of jewelry sold by Tiu
Won. They also denied that a gun was found in the possession of Tiu
Won.
Qui Yaling recalled that upon asking who was it knocking at the
door of her apartment on October 12, the police authorities
represented that they were electric bill collectors. She let them in.
She was surprised when upon opening the door, around ten (10)
policemen barged inside her unit. She, together with Tiu Won and
Chin, was asked to remain seated in the sofa while the men searched
each room. Tiu Won alleged that after a fruitless search, some of the

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3d498e9c3c69ca003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
3/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 405

policemen went out, but came back a few minutes later with another
person. Afterwards, he was made to sign a piece of paper.
Appellants also claimed that the policemen took their bags which
contained money, the pieces of jewelry they were selling and even
Qui Yaling’s cell phone. They both denied that shabu was
discovered in the apartment during the search. Appellants were
arrested and brought to the police station.
In a decision, dated August 15, 2001, the RTC found proof
beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the appellants and sentenced
them to suffer the6
penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of
P500,000.00 each.
Thus, appellants interpose this appeal raising the following
assignment of errors:

_______________

6 Rollo, p. 41.

286

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tiu Won Chua

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE LEGAL

DEFECTS OF THE SEARCH WARRANT USED BY THE POLICE
OPERATIVES AGAINST BOTH ACCUSED.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION

EVIDENCES (sic) WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED AND
DISREGARDED WHICH RESULTED IN THE ERRONEOUS
CONVICTION OF BOTH ACCUSED.

III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING BOTH ACCUSED

DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.

IV

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF BOTH ACCUSED WERE
7
SERIOUSLY VIOLATED BY THE POLICE OPERATIVES.

These issues can be trimmed down to two i.e., the legality of the
search warrant and the search and arrest conducted pursuant thereto,
and the correctness of the judgment of conviction imposed by the
RTC.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3d498e9c3c69ca003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
3/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 405

As regards the propriety of the search warrant issued in the name

of Timothy Tiu, which did not include appellant Qui Yaling,
appellants contend that because of this defect, the search conducted
and consequently, the arrest, are illegal. Being fruits of an illegal
search, the evidence presented cannot serve as basis for their
conviction.
We beg to disagree. There are only four requisites for a valid
warrant, i.e.: (1) it must be issued upon “probable cause”; (2)
probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) such
judge must examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce; and (4) the warrant must particularly
describe
8
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized. As correctly argued by the Solicitor General, a

_______________

7 Id., at p. 53.
8 “. . . and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after ex

287

VOL. 405, JULY 1, 2003 287

People vs. Tiu Won Chua

mistake in the9
name of the person to be searched does not invalidate
the warrant, especially since in this case, the authorities had
personal knowledge of the drug-related activities of the accused. In
fact, a “John Doe” warrant satisfies the requirements so long as it
contains a descriptio 10personae such as will enable the officer to
identify the accused. We have also held that a mistake in the
identification of the owner of the place does not invalidate11 the
warrant provided the place to be searched is properly described.
Thus, even if the search warrant used by the police authorities did
not contain the correct name of Tiu Won or the name of Qui Yaling,
that defect did not invalidate it because the place to be searched was
described properly. Besides, the authorities conducted surveillance
and a test-buy operation before obtaining the search warrant and
subsequently implementing it. They can therefore be presumed to
have personal knowledge of the identity of the persons and the place
to be searched although they may not have specifically known the
names of the accused. Armed with the warrant, a valid search of
Unit 4-B was conducted.
We affirm, however, the illegality of the search conducted on the
car, on the ground that it was not part of the description of the place
to be searched mentioned in the warrant. It is mandatory that for the
search to be valid, it must12
be directed at the place particularly
described in the warrant. Moreover, the search of the car was not
incidental to a lawful arrest. To be valid, such warrantless search
must be limited to that point within the reach or control of the

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3d498e9c3c69ca003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
3/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 405

person arrested, or that which may13furnish him with the means of

committing violence or of escaping. In this case,

_______________

amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.” (Section 2, Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution); People v.
Francisco, G.R. No. 129035, August 22, 2002, 387 SCRA 569.
9 68 Am Jur 2d, Section 221 at 795 and 43 ALR 5th, Section 2[b] at 27-28, citing
State v. Tramantano, 28 Conn. Supp. 325, 260 A.2d 128 (Super. Ct. 1969).
10 People v. Veloso, 48 Phil. 169 (1925).
11 Uy v. BIR, G.R. No. 129651, October 20, 2000, 344 SCRA 36.
12 People v. Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 400 (1998).
13 People v. Lua, 256 SCRA 539 (1996).

288

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tiu Won Chua

appellants were arrested inside the apartment, whereas the car was
parked a few meters away from the building.
In a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it
must be shown that (1) appellants were in possession of an item or
an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such
possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the appellants were 14
freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.
We also note that the crime under consideration is malum
prohibitum, hence, lack of criminal intent or good faith does not
exempt appellants from criminal liability. Mere possession of a
regulated drug without 15
legal authority is punishable under the
Dangerous Drugs Act.
In the case at bar, the prosecution has sufficiently proved that the
packs of shabu were found inside Unit 4-B, HCL Building, 1025
Masangkay St., Binondo, Manila. Surveillance was previously
conducted. Though no arrest was made after the successful testbuy
operation, this does not destroy the fact that in a subsequent search,
appellants were found in possession of shabu. The testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses are consistent in that after the test-buy
operation, they obtained a search warrant from Judge Makasiar,
pursuant to which, they were able to confiscate, among others,
several packs of shabu from a man’s handbag and a ladies’ handbag
inside a room in the unit subject of the warrant. Furthermore, the
seizure of the regulated drug 16
from Unit 4-B is proven by the
“Receipt for Property Seized” signed by SPO1 de Leon, the seizing
officer, Noel, the building administrator, and Joji Olarte, his wife,
who were also present. De Leon attested to the truth and
genuineness of the receipt which was not contradicted by the
defense.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3d498e9c3c69ca003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
3/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 405

Be that as it may, we cannot sustain the trial court’s decision

attributing to both appellants the illegal possession of the same
amount of shabu. We note that nowhere in the information is
conspiracy alleged. Neither had it been proven during the trial. As

_______________

14 People v. Rosdia Hajili y Sakilan, a.k.a. Rosdia Hajili y Jayadi alias “Hadji
Usdi,” and Normina Unday y Aloh, G.R. Nos. 149872-73, March 14,2003, 399
SCRA 188.
15 People v. Que Ming Kha and Kim Que Yu, G.R. No. 133265, May 29, 2002, 382
SCRA 480.
16 Records, p. 14.

289

VOL. 405, JULY 1, 2003 289

People vs. Tiu Won Chua

such, we need to look at the individual amounts possessed by each

appellant.
In his testimony, Tiu Won admitted ownership of the man’s
handbag where 234.5 grams of shabu were found, viz.:

Q: During those ten to 20 minutes, what were those policemen

doing inside that unit?
A: They went inside the rooms and started ransacking the drawers
and everything. As a matter of fact, even handbags were
searched by them.
Q: Whose handbags were searched?
A: My bag, the one I was carrying that day, with jewelry and
17
checks and others were taken by them. (emphasis supplied)

Qui Yaling, in her appellant’s brief, denied owning the handbag

where 20.3673 grams of shabu were discovered. However, during
her testimony, she admitted its ownership, viz.:

Q: Now, the police testified before this court that you has (sic)a bag
and when they searched this bag, it yielded some sachets of
shabu(.) (W)hat can you say about that?
A: That is an absolute lie, sir. What they saw in my bag were my
18
cosmetics. (emphasis supplied)

An admission is an act or declaration of a party as to the existence

19
of
a relevant fact which may be used in evidence against him. These
admissions, provided they are voluntary, can be used against
appellants because it is fair to presume20that they correspond with the
truth, and it is their fault if they do not.
Qui Yaling likewise argues that the lower court erred in
attributing ownership of the handbag to her considering that there

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3d498e9c3c69ca003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
3/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 405

was another girl present at the apartment during the search. She
contends that since the prosecution was not able to establish the
ownership of the bag, then such could have also been owned by
Chin.
We do not subscribe to this argument. The defense failed to bring
Chin to court, although during the course of the presentation of their
evidence, they manifested their intention to present her

_______________

17 TSN, Tiu Won Chua, September 25, 2000, p. 5.

18 TSN, Qui Yaling, November 15, 2000, p. 10.
19 Section 26, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court.
20 U.S. v. Ching Po, 23 Phil. 578 (1912).

290

290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tiu Won Chua

testimony. Furthermore, a visitor does not normally leave her bag

lying anywhere, much more in the master’s bedroom. Being the
occupant of the apartment, it is more logical to presume that the
handbag belongs to Qui Yaling. The failure of the prosecution to
present the bags and proofs that the bags belong to the appellants is
immaterial because the bags, the license of Tiu Won found inside the
man’s handbag and the passport of Qui Yaling found inside the
ladies’ handbag are not illegal. Having no relation to the use or
possession of shabu, the authorities could not confiscate them for
they did not have the authority to do so since the warrant authorized
them to21
seize only articles in relation to the illegal possession of
shabu. Not within their control, they could not have been presented
in court.
We now come to the penalties of the appellants. R.A. No. 6425,
as amended by R.A. No. 7659, applies. Thus, since 234.5 grams of
shabu were found inside the man’s handbag, deemed to be owned by
Tiu Won, he is guilty of violating Section 16, Article III of R.A. No.
6425, while Qui Yaling, whose handbag contained only 20.3673
grams of shabu is guilty of violating Section 20 thereof. Section 16,
in connection with Section 20 (1stparagraph), provides the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos where the amount of shabu
involved is 200 grams or more. Where the amount is less than 200
grams, Section 20 punishes the offender with the penalty ranging
from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of RTC Br. 27, Manila as to
the penalty of appellant Tiu Won is affirmed, while that of appellant
Qui Yaling is modified. Tiu Won Chua is sentenced to a penalty of
reclusion perpetua, and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) in accordance with Section 16 and Section 20 (1st
paragraph) of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. Qui

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3d498e9c3c69ca003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
3/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 405

Yaling y Chua is sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of prision

correccional as minimum to prision mayor as maximum, there being
no mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
SO ORDERED.

          Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Carpio-

Morales, JJ., concur.

_______________

21 People v. Dichoso, 223 SCRA 174 (1993).

291

VOL. 405, JULY 1, 2003 291

Republic vs. Lao

Judgment as to appellant Tiu Won affirmed. While that of appellant

Qui Yaling modified.

Note.—Settled is the rule that no arrest, search and seizure can

be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial
authority. (People vs. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140 [1999])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3d498e9c3c69ca003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11