People v. Salanguit 2001

TOPIC: PARTIALLY VALID WARRANT
Degree of force necessary in implementing a warrant of arrest and/or search

warrant: The admissibility of the marijuana seized from him based on the "plain
view" doctrine. The use of unnecessary force by the police during the execution of
the warrant.
People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Salanguit y Ko

G.R. Nos. 133254-55, MENDOZA, April 19, 2001
Facts:
Accused-appellant Roberto Salanguit y Ko was convicted by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 96, Quezon City, on January 27, 1998, for violation of sections 8
and 16 of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended. Salanguit
was sentenced to imprisonment ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor as
minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as
maximum, and for violation of section 8, to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and to pay a fine of P700,000.00.
Issue/s:
Validity of the search warrant used to obtain shabu from the accused-appellant's
residence.
Admissibility in evidence of marijuana allegedly seized under the "plain view"

doctrine.
Employment of unnecessary force by the police in the execution of the search

warrant.
Held:
The Supreme Court held the first part of the search warrant, regarding the search
for an undetermined quantity of shabu, as valid despite the second part, regarding
the search for drug paraphernalia, being invalid. The search warrant was
considered specific enough, even though it did not pinpoint a specific section of
the Dangerous Drugs Act, due to substantial evidence indicating the person and
place to be searched.
Regarding the seizure of marijuana, the Supreme Court found it to be invalid due
to the lack of immediate apparent illegality, as the marijuana bricks were wrapped
in newsprint and could not have been readily discernible as prohibited items under
the "plain view" doctrine. The Supreme Court dismissed the accused-appellant's
claim of undue and unnecessary force used by the police due to a lack of reliable
and competent proof.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed Salanguit's conviction for possession of

illegal drugs under section 16 but reversed the conviction and acquitted him for the
possession of prohibited drugs under section 8.
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. Q-95-64357, the decision of the Regional

Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City, finding accused-appellant Roberto Salanguit
y Ko guilty of possession of illegal drugs under Ã‚§16 of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer a
prison term ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, and four
(4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and ordering
the confiscation of 11.14 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride is
AFFIRMED.
In Criminal Case No. Q-95-64358, the decision of the same court finding accused-
appellant Roberto Salanguit y Ko guilty of possession of prohibited drugs under
Ã‚§8 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P700,000.00 is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
However, the confiscation of the 1,254 grams of marijuana, as well as the 11.14
grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and its disposition as ordered by the
trial court is AFFIRMED.
Third. Accused-appellant claims that undue and unnecessary force was employed by the searching party in effecting the
raid.
Rule 126, §7 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
42
Right to break door or window to effect search. - The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after
giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a
house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully
detained therein.
Accused-appellant's claim that the policemen had clambered up the roof of his house to gain entry and had broken doors
and windows in the process is unsupported by reliable and competent proof. No affidavit or sworn statement of
disinterested persons, like the barangay officials or neighbors, has been presented by accused-appellant to attest to the
truth of his claim.
In contrast, Aguilar and Duano's claim that they had to use some force in order to gain entry cannot be doubted. The
occupants of the house, especially accused-appellant, refused to open the door despite the fact that the searching party
knocked on the door several times. Furthermore, the agents saw the suspicious movements of the people inside the
house. These circumstances justified the searching party's forcible entry into the house, founded as it is on the
apprehension that the execution of their mission would be frustrated unless they do so.
FACTS: December 26, 1995, Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied for a warrant in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 90,
5
Dasmariñias, Cavite, to search the residence of accused-appellant Robert Salanguit y Ko on Binhagan St., Novaliches,
Quezon City. He presented as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua, who testified that as a poseur-buyer, he was able to
purchase 2.12 grams of shabu from accused-appellant. The sale took place in accused-appellant's room, and Badua saw
that the shabu was taken by accused-appellant from a cabinet inside his room. The application was granted, and a search
warrant was later issued by Presiding Judge Dolores L. Español.
At about 10:30 p.m. of December 26, 1995, a group of about 10 policemen, along with one civilian informer, went to the
residence of accused-appellant to serve the warrant.6
The police operatives knocked on accused-appellant’s door, but nobody opened it. They heard people inside the house,
apparently panicking. The police operatives then forced the door open and entered the house. 7
After showing the search warrant to the occupants of the house, Lt. Cortes and his group started searching the
house.8 They found 12 small heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance, a paper clip
box also containing a white crystalline substance, and two bricks of dried leaves which appeared to be marijuana wrapped
10
A receipt of the items
in newsprint9 having a total weight of approximately 1,255 grams.
seized was prepared, but the accused-appellant refused to

sign it. 11
ccordingly, we hold that the first part of the search warrant, authorizing the search of accused-appellant's house for an
undetermined quantity of shabu, is valid, even though the second part, with respect to the search for drug paraphernalia,
is not.

People v. Salanguit 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Salanguit 2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

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. Salanguit 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOPIC: PARTIALLY VALID WARRANT

Degree of force necessary in implementing a warrant of arrest and/or search

People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Salanguit y Ko

Admissibility in evidence of marijuana allegedly seized under the "plain view"

Employment of unnecessary force by the police in the execution of the search

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed Salanguit's conviction for possession of

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. Q-95-64357, the decision of the Regional

seized was prepared, but the accused-appellant refused to

You might also like