G.R. No. 142295. May 31, 2001.
VICENTE DEL ROSARIO y NICOLAS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Acting on a report that petitioner Vicente del Rosario possessed unlicensed firearms, police obtained a certification from the Firearms and Explosives Division stating a “Vicente ‘Vic’ del Rosario” of Barangay Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan was not a licensed firearm holder. Based on this, a search warrant was issued. On June 15, 1996, police served the warrant at the petitioner’s residence in Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray. The search yielded a .45 caliber pistol, a .22 caliber revolver, ammunition, and magazines. Petitioner failed to produce licenses for the firearms. He was charged with illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866, as amended.
At trial, the petitioner claimed the .45 pistol was licensed and alleged the other items were planted. He also assailed the search warrant’s validity, arguing the supporting certification referred to a different person from a different barangay. The Regional Trial Court convicted him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, contending the search was illegal and the evidence obtained was inadmissible.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the search conducted at the petitioner’s residence was lawful, rendering the seized firearms admissible as evidence against him.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The search was deemed lawful. The Court held that while the police certification referenced “Vicente ‘Vic’ del Rosario” of Barangay Bigte, and the petitioner resided in Barangay Tigbe, this discrepancy did not invalidate the warrant. The issuing judge conducted a sufficient examination of the applicant and his witness. The warrant particularly described the place to be searched—the petitioner’s specific residence in Tigbe—and the items to be seized. The police acted in good faith upon the certification, and the petitioner’s identity as the subject of the report was sufficiently established. The search was conducted properly with barangay officials present, and inventories were signed.
Consequently, the seized firearms were admissible. Possession of the firearms was proven, and the petitioner’s failure to present a valid license, despite his claim, established the corpus delicti of the crime. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals, within the range prescribed by the amendatory law (Republic Act No. 8294), was affirmed. The Court emphasized that the constitutional requirement for particularity in a warrant is satisfied if the description enables the officer to locate the place with reasonable effort, which was met in this case.