G.R. No. 117412; December 8, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and VALENTINO C. ORTIZ, respondents.

FACTS

On August 13, 1992, PNP-CISC operatives, after surveilling suspected drug activities in Makati, accosted private respondent Valentino Ortiz. A frisk yielded an unlicensed pistol, and a search of his vehicle revealed shabu. Later that same day, based on police depositions, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque issued Search Warrant No. 92-94 for Ortiz’s residence, authorizing search for unlicensed firearms “at any reasonable hour of the day or night.” Executed around 7:30 P.M., the search, witnessed by a court bailiff and a barangay security officer after Ortiz’s wife and maid refused, resulted in the seizure of various unlicensed firearms and ammunition.
The Regional Trial Court denied Ortiz’s motion to quash the warrant. However, the Court of Appeals granted his petition, declaring the seized items inadmissible. The appellate court found the search unreasonable for being conducted at night and held it violated the witness rule under Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, as it was not done in the presence of the lawful occupant or any member of his family. The People filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the firearms and ammunition seized from Ortiz’s residence inadmissible in evidence.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling the seized evidence admissible. The search’s timing was reasonable. The warrant expressly authorized a search “at any reasonable hour,” and 7:30 P.M. falls within a reasonable timeframe, not constituting a prohibited nighttime search which requires a separate finding of necessity. Regarding the witness requirement, the legal logic is clear: the rule aims to ensure the search is conducted properly and to prevent abuses. The law, however, provides an alternative when the lawful occupant or family member refuses to witness the proceedings. In such a case, the search may be conducted in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. Here, Ortiz’s wife and maid unjustifiably refused. The police then properly secured a court bailiff and a barangay security officer to act as witnesses. To hold otherwise would allow the lawful occupant to frustrate a valid warrant through mere refusal. The search was thus regular, and the exclusionary rule does not apply.