GR 179718; (September, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 179718 September 17, 2008
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Lourdes V. Legaspi, Appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Lourdes V. Legaspi was charged with illegal possession of marijuana and shabu. The charges stemmed from a police operation on March 14, 2001, where narcotics agents implemented a search warrant at her residence in Meycauayan, Bulacan. The search, conducted between 1:25 and 2:30 a.m., yielded a brick of dried marijuana fruiting tops and several plastic packs of shabu. The items were seized in the presence of the appellant and barangay tanods, subsequently tested, and confirmed to be prohibited and regulated drugs.
At trial, Legaspi contested the validity of the search, arguing it was conducted at an unreasonable hour and not in her presence as required. The Regional Trial Court convicted her, imposing penalties including reclusion perpetua for the marijuana possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty for the shabu possession. Legaspi appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the search and seizure conducted at appellant’s residence were valid, and whether her guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The search was validly executed. The search warrant expressly authorized service “at any time of the day or night,” as the supporting affidavit alleged the items were on the person or in the place to be searched, complying with Section 9, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the pre-dawn execution was not unreasonable.
Furthermore, the factual findings of the lower courts, which held that the search was conducted in the presence of the appellant and witnessed by barangay officials, are conclusive. The Court emphasized that trial court assessments of witness credibility are accorded high respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal absent any clear oversight. No improper motive was shown on the part of the law enforcers. The consistent testimonies of the police officers and the physical evidence presented established all elements of the crimes. Therefore, appellant’s guilt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.