G.R. No. 124461 September 25, 1998
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 83, QUEZON CITY; and AIDEN LANUZA, respondents.

FACTS

On June 27, 1995, Atty. Lorna Frances F. Cabanlas, Chief of the Legal, Information and Compliance Division of the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), filed an application for a search warrant against Aiden Lanuza of 516 San Jose de la Montana Street, Mabolo, Cebu City, for violation of the Consumer Act (selling/distributing drug products without a BFAD license). The application was supported by the affidavit of SPO4 Manuel P. Cabiles, who stated he bought various drug products from Lanuza at that address on May 29, 1995, and that verification showed Lanuza and the premises had no license. However, the application concluded with a statement that it was to support an application for a search warrant on the premises of Belen Cabanero at New Frontier Village, Talisay, Cebu. A sketch of Lanuza’s residence was submitted. On the same day, respondent Judge Estrella T. Estrada issued Search Warrant No. 958 (95) commanding a search of the premises of “Ms. Aiden Lanuza of 516 San Jose dela Montana Street, Cebu City” for specified medicines and drugs. The warrant was served on June 28, 1995. According to the search team’s joint affidavit, they raided the premises of Aiden Lanuza at 516 San Jose de la Montana Street and confiscated fifty-two cartons of assorted medicines. However, the petition later stated that the address was a large compound with multiple structures; the team first searched Lanuza’s residence (Lot 41) and found nothing, then proceeded to search a nearby warehouse (Lot 38) within the same compound, which yielded the seized drugs. On August 22, 1995, private respondent Aiden Lanuza filed a motion to quash the search warrant on several grounds, including that it was applied for one person (Belen Cabanero) at one address but issued for another (Aiden Lanuza) at a different address; that it was issued for a non-existent offense; that the applicant lacked authority; that it failed to particularly describe the place and things; that the witnesses lacked personal knowledge; and that its implementation was unreasonable as it was enforced on a wrong place occupied by a wrong person. The respondent Judge granted the motion to quash in an order dated December 7, 1995, and denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on April 1, 1996. The People of the Philippines filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge correctly quashed Search Warrant No. 958 (95).

RULING

Yes, the respondent Judge correctly quashed the search warrant. The Supreme Court denied the petition and lifted the temporary restraining order. The Court found that the search warrant was applied for one purpose (to search Belen Cabanero’s premises) but was issued for another (to search Aiden Lanuza’s premises), constituting a fatal defect. The application’s concluding statement seeking a warrant for Belen Cabanero’s premises created ambiguity and doubt about the true target of the search, violating the requirement that a search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched. Furthermore, the implementing officers exceeded the authority of the warrant. The warrant commanded a search of “Ms. Aiden Lanuza of 516 San Jose dela Montana Street, Cebu City.” The evidence showed that address was a large compound with multiple structures and occupants. The search team first searched Lanuza’s residence (Lot 41) and, finding nothing, proceeded to search a warehouse at Lot 38 within the same compound, which was owned by Folk Arts Import & Export Company (owned by David Po). This was a clear violation of the rule that a search warrant must direct a search of one specific place, and the search cannot extend to other places not described in the warrant. The seizure of articles in a place not specified in the warrant renders the search unreasonable and the seized items inadmissible. The respondent Judge acted correctly in quashing the warrant and ordering the return of the seized items.