G.R. No. 147607 ; January 22, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. BENHUR MAMARIL, appellant.

FACTS

Police officers implemented Search Warrant No. 99-51 at the family residence of appellant Benhur Mamaril in Lingayen, Pangasinan. Upon arrival, they saw appellant, who attempted to flee but was stopped. The search, witnessed by barangay officials, yielded seventy-eight sachets of crushed marijuana leaves and two bricks of marijuana fruiting tops, with a total weight of 1,836.83 grams, found in various locations within the house and its premises. The items were confiscated, photographed, and later confirmed by forensic examination to be marijuana. Appellant tested positive for shabu. During pre-trial, the parties admitted several facts, including the execution of the search at the house where appellant lived.
At trial, appellant contested the admissibility of the seized drugs. He filed a motion to exclude the evidence, arguing the search warrant was illegally issued because the judge’s examination of the applicant and witnesses was not in writing, and that it was improperly implemented. The trial court denied the motion, found the warrant validly issued and executed, and convicted appellant of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 8 of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended.

ISSUE

Whether the search warrant was validly issued and implemented, rendering the seized marijuana admissible as evidence against the appellant.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding the search warrant was valid and the evidence admissible. On the issuance, the Court ruled that while the Constitution requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and witnesses, it does not mandate that the examination be in writing. The sworn affidavits of the applicant and witnesses, which detailed surveillance and personal knowledge of appellant’s drug activities, sufficiently substantiated the finding of probable cause. The judge’s determination is presumed regular, and appellant failed to present clear evidence to rebut this presumption.
Regarding implementation, the search was conducted at the place specified in the warrant—the appellant’s family residence where he also lived—and in his presence. The presence of barangay officials as witnesses and the preparation of a detailed receipt for seized items confirmed proper procedure. Appellant’s flight upon seeing the officers further indicated guilt and consciousness of possession. The positive forensic report conclusively established the nature of the seized substances. Consequently, all elements of illegal possession were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and a fine, in accordance with the law.