G.R. No. 126859; September 4, 2001
YOUSEF AL-GHOUL, ISAM MOHAMMAD ABDULHADI, WAIL RASHID AL-KHATIB, NABEEL NASSER AL-RIYAMI, ASHRAF HASSAM AL-YAZORI, AND MOHAMMAD ABUSHENDI, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were charged with illegal possession of firearms, ammunition, and explosives under Presidential Decree No. 1866. The charges stemmed from a search conducted on April 1, 1995, based on warrants issued for Apartment No. 2 at 154 Obiniana Compound, Kalookan City. During implementation, however, the police searched both Apartment No. 2 and Apartment No. 8. Various firearms and explosives were seized. Petitioners filed a motion for bail, which the Regional Trial Court denied, finding the evidence of guilt strong for offenses then punishable by reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders. Petitioners elevated the case via certiorari, with the Supreme Court having previously resolved the bail issue in their favor following the enactment of Republic Act No. 8294, which reduced the penalties.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence obtained from the search is admissible, considering the alleged violations in the implementation of the search warrants.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence seized from Apartment No. 2 is admissible, but the evidence from Apartment No. 8 is inadmissible. The legal logic is anchored on the constitutional requirement that a search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched. The warrants specifically authorized a search of Apartment No. 2 only. The search of Apartment No. 8, a distinct premises, was therefore a general warrantless search conducted without lawful authority, violating Sections 2 and 3(2) of the Bill of Rights. Consequently, the .45 caliber pistol seized from Apartment No. 8 is inadmissible as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Regarding Apartment No. 2, the Court found the warrants validly issued upon probable cause and described the items to be seized with particularity. Petitioners’ contention on the two-witness requirement for the receipt of seized property under Rule 126, Section 10, was unavailing. The Court clarified that this rule pertains to leaving a receipt in the absence of the lawful occupant and does not govern the validity of the search itself or the admissibility of the evidence. The search of Apartment No. 2 was conducted in the presence of petitioners, satisfying the witness requirement under Rule 126, Section 7. Thus, the items seized from Apartment No. 2 were obtained through a valid search and are admissible in evidence against the petitioners.