GR 129035; (August, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129035 ; August 22, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Annabelle Francisco y David @ Annabelle Tablan, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Annabelle Francisco and her live-in partner Federico Verona were placed under surveillance after a police test-buy confirmed they were selling shabu. SPO2 Teneros and SPO4 Alberto San Juan applied for a search warrant before the RTC of Manila to search the premises at “122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City.” The application included an After-Surveillance Report and a sketch of the area. The warrant was issued by Judge Bayhon. The police team, along with barangay officials, enforced the warrant. Accused-appellant, who was nine months pregnant, was at her residence at “No. 120 M. Hizon Street, Caloocan City” when police forcibly entered and searched her bedroom for about an hour. The police seized various items, including 230 grams of shabu. She was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Accused-appellant filed a motion to quash the search warrant, asserting she leased the apartment at No. 120 M. Hizon Street, not No. 122. The trial court denied the motion, upheld the warrant’s validity, and convicted her, sentencing her to reclusion perpetua and a fine.
ISSUE
Whether the search conducted at No. 120 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City, was reasonable and valid, considering the search warrant specifically authorized a search of No. 122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant. The search was illegal and violated her constitutional rights. The constitutional requirement that a search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched is mandatory. The warrant authorized a search only of “No. 122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City,” but the actual search was conducted at “No. 120 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City.” These are two distinct and separate places. The police could not, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended by the warrant as the place they actually searched. The variance between the place described in the warrant and the place searched is not a minor error but a fatal defect that nullifies the warrant and renders the search unreasonable. Consequently, all evidence obtained from the illegal search is inadmissible. Without this evidence, there is no proof to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.