G.R. No. 213875 , July 15, 2020
Merlina R. Diaz, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

On April 27, 2012, RTC Judge Agripino Morga issued Search Warrant No. 97 (12) based on the application and examination of PO2 Pio P. Avila. The warrant commanded a search of the house of “MERLY DIAZ @ Merly Palayok” at “Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna” for undetermined amounts of shabu. An informant, Jericho S. Labrador, provided two sketches: one depicting a studio-type apartment floor plan and another identifying petitioner’s house among three buildings along Gitna. Pursuant to the warrant, police searched the house, seized approximately nine grams of shabu, and arrested petitioner. Subsequent information revealed petitioner’s complete address was No. 972, Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna, and that the house was divided into five separate units occupied by petitioner and her four siblings and their families. An Information for violation of Section 11, R.A. No. 9165 was filed. Petitioner moved to quash the search warrant, arguing it was a general warrant for failing to describe the place with particularity, as it omitted the house number (972) and failed to distinguish her specific unit within the multi-unit dwelling. The RTC denied the motion, finding the description sufficient. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari, ruling the warrant valid and not a general warrant, as the officers were able to identify the building with reasonable effort using the provided sketches.

ISSUE

Whether Search Warrant No. 97 (12) is a general warrant for failing to describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the validity of Search Warrant No. 97 (12). The constitutional requirement is that a warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched. The test is whether the description is sufficient to enable the officer with reasonable effort to ascertain and identify the place intended and to distinguish it from others in the community. The warrant’s description of petitioner’s “house at Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna” satisfied this test. The police officers, aided by the informant’s sketches, were able to locate the building. The Court ruled that the warrant authorized a search of petitioner’s entire house. It distinguished the situation from cases where a warrant describes an entire building divided into distinct apartments or offices, requiring separate warrants for each independent unit. Here, the house, though occupied by different families, was considered a single dwelling unit, as the applicant and executing officers had no prior knowledge of its multi-unit character. The inaccuracy in the floor plan sketch did not invalidate the warrant, as the executing officers, upon arrival, could determine the precise place intended—the house of petitioner—which they successfully identified and searched.