People v. Tuan

People v.
Tuan
Facts:
At around nine o'clock in the morning on January 24, 2000, two male informants
namely, Jerry Tudlong (Tudlong) and Frank Lad-ing (Lad-ing) arrived at the office of
the 14th Regional CIDG (Criminal Investigation and Detention Group) at DPS
Compound, Marcoville, Baguio City, and reported to SPO2 Fernandez, Chief of the
Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU), that a certain "Estela Tuan" had been selling
marijuana at Barangay Gabriela Silang, Baguio City.
SPO2 Fernandez set out to verify the report of Tudlong and Lad-ing. At around one
o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, he gave Tudlong and Lad-ing P300.00 to buy
marijuana, and then accompanied the two informants to the accused-appellant's
house. Tudlong and Lad-ing entered accused-appellant's house, while SPO2
Fernandez waited at the adjacent house. After thirty minutes, Tudlong and Lad-ing
came out of accused-appellant's house and showed SPO2 Fernandez the marijuana
leaves they bought. After returning to the CIDG regional office, SPO2 Fernandez
requested the laboratory examination of the leaves bought from accused-appellant.
When said laboratory examination yielded positive results for marijuana, SPO2
Fernandez prepared an Application for Search Warrant for accused-appellant's house.
SPO2 Fernandez, together with Tudlong and Lad-ing, filed the Application for a Search
Warrant before Judge Iluminada Cabato-Cortes (Judge Cortes) of the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities (MTCC), Baguio City, Branch IV, at about one o'clock in the afternoon
on January 25, 2000. Two hours later, at around three o'clock, Judge Cortes
personally examined SPO2 Fernandez, Tudlong, and Lad-ing, after which, she issued a
Search Warrant, being satisfied of the existence of probable cause.
Upon receipt of the Search Warrant, SPO2 Fernandez, his team supervisor Police
Senior Inspector Rodolfo Castel, SPO1 Carrera, Police Senior Inspector Ricarte
Marquez and PO2 Chavez implemented the warrant. Before going to the accused-
appellant's house, SPO2 Fernandez invited barangay officials to be present when the
Search Warrant was to be served, but since no one was available, he requested one
Eliza Pascual (Pascual), accused-appellant's neighbor, to come along.
SPO1 Carrera and PO2 Chavez began searching the rooms on the first floor in the
presence of Magno and Pascual. They continued their search on the second floor.
They saw a movable cabinet in accused-appellant's room, below which they found a
brick of marijuana and a firearm. At around six o'clock that evening, accused-
appellant arrived with her son. The police officers asked accused-appellant to open a
built-in cabinet, in which they saw eight more bricks of marijuana.[9] PO2 Chavez
issued a receipt for the items confiscated from accused-appellant[10] and a
certification stating that the items were confiscated and recovered from the house and
in accused-appellant's presence.
The RTC, in its Decision dated April 9, 2002, found accused-appellant guilty as
charged.
The Court of Appeals held that the contested search and consequent seizure of the
marijuana bricks were done pursuant to the Search Warrant validly issued by the
MTCC. There was no showing of procedural defects or lapses in the issuance of said
Search Warrant as the records support that the issuing judge determined probable
cause only after conducting the searching inquiry and personal examination of the
applicant and the latter's witnesses, in compliance with the requirements of the
Constitution. Hence, the appellate court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant
for illegal possession of marijuana.
The Court of Appeals, however, modified the appealed RTC judgment by acquitting
accused-appellant of the charge for illegal possession of firearm. According to the
appellate court, the records were bereft of evidence that the gun supposedly
confiscated from accused-appellant was unlicensed. The absence of a firearm license
was simply presumed by the police officers because the gun was a defective paltik with
no serial number. That the said condition of the gun did not dispense with the need
for the prosecution to establish that it was unlicensed through the testimony or
certification of the appropriate officer from the Board of the Firearms and Explosives
Bureau of the Philippine National Police.
Issue:
Whether or not THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING AS VOID THE
SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Ruling:
No.
The validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it
must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by
the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the
determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation,
the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant
issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be
seized.
There is no dispute herein that the second and third factors for a validly issued search
warrant were complied with, i.e., personal determination of probable cause by Judge
Cortes; and examination, under oath or affirmation, of SPO2 Fernandez and the two
informants, Lad-ing and Tudlong, by Judge Cortes. What is left for the Court to
determine is compliance with the first and fourth factors, i.e., existence of probable
cause; and particular description of the place to be searched and things to be seized.
A magistrate's determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is
paid great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis for
that determination. Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining
judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet
and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects in
connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched.
Such substantial basis exists in this case.
Judge Cortes found probable cause for the issuance of the Search Warrant for
accused-appellant's residence after said judge's personal examination of SPO2
Fernandez, the applicant; and Lad-ing and Tudlong, the informants.
SPO2 Fernandez based his Application for Search Warrant not only on the information
relayed to him by Lad-ing and Tudlong. He also arranged for a test buy and conducted
surveillance of accused-appellant.

People v. Tuan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Tuan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

People v. Tuan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v.

You might also like