G.R. No. 224935. March 02, 2022.
ANTONIO U. SIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

In 2010, Police Senior Inspector Paulino G. Raguindin applied for a search warrant with the Manila Regional Trial Court, alleging that Antonio Sio possessed shabu and used vehicles for drug trafficking at his Dalahican, Lucena City residence, based on a confidential informant’s tip. The court issued Search Warrant No. 10-24095 on October 22, 2010. On October 24, 2010, police operatives implemented the warrant, seizing suspected shabu, a firearm, ammunition, and two vehicles (a CRV Honda and a Toyota Camry). The substance tested positive for shabu. Two Informations were filed against Sio for violations of Sections 11 (Illegal Possession) and 12 (Illegal Possession of Paraphernalia) of Republic Act No. 9165. Before the trial court, Sio filed an Omnibus Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest, arguing infirmities in the search warrant and its implementation. He pointed out that the vehicles described in the warrant application did not match those seized, the warrant was implemented at a different address (Barangay Purok 3-A vs. Ilaya Ibaba, Purok 34), and the police failed to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 as they were not accompanied by PDEA operatives, media, or barangay officials during the initial search and inventory. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion and issued a warrant for his arrest. The Court of Appeals dismissed Sio’s subsequent petition for certiorari, prompting this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court’s finding of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Sio, despite alleged infirmities in the search warrant and non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 during its implementation.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It ruled that the evidence obtained from the search is inadmissible due to the police’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The law requires the inventory and photographing of seized items to be conducted immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or their representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The police operatives admitted that during the implementation of the warrant at around 7:00 a.m., they were not accompanied by PDEA agents, media, or barangay officials. These witnesses only arrived at about 10:00 a.m., a three-hour gap, and the search was not conducted in the presence of Sio or any family member. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this deviation. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised, rendering them inadmissible. Without the inadmissible evidence obtained from the search, there was no probable cause to hold Sio for trial for violations of Sections 11 and 12 of RA 9165. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution and directed the trial court to dismiss the criminal cases against Antonio Sio.