G.R. No. L-95630 June 18, 1992
SPOUSES LEOPOLDO and MA. LUISA VEROY, petitioners, vs. THE HON. WILLIAM L. LAYAGUE, Presiding Judge, Branch XIV, Regional Trial Court at Davao City; and BRIG. GEN. PANTALEON DUMLAO, Commanding General, PC-Criminal Investigation Service, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, spouses Leopoldo and Ma. Luisa Veroy, owned a house in Davao City but resided in Quezon City since 1988, leaving the Davao house under the care of two houseboys. On April 12, 1990, Capt. Reynaldo Obrero, acting on information that the house was a rebel safehouse, raided the premises but did not enter the house due to the absence of a search warrant and the owners. Capt. Obrero contacted Ma. Luisa Veroy by telephone to seek permission to search the house, which she granted on the condition that the search be conducted in the presence of a family friend, Major Ernesto Macasaet. The following day, Capt. Obrero and Major Macasaet, with the help of a locksmith, entered and searched the house, recovering a .45 caliber handgun with ammunition and printed materials of RAM-SFP. An information for Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Furtherance of Rebellion) was filed against the petitioners. They filed a Motion for Bail, which was denied, and an “Urgent Motion for Hospital Confinement,” which was also denied by the trial court. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, challenging the constitutionality of the search and seizure. This Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order and later granted petitioners provisional liberty on bail. The petition for mandamus and certiorari were rendered moot, leaving the issue of the legality of the search and seizure.

ISSUE

Whether the warrantless search conducted on the petitioners’ house and the subsequent seizure of evidence are valid and constitutional.

RULING

The warrantless search and seizure are invalid and unconstitutional. The search violated the constitutional requirement that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant. None of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement—such as search incidental to an arrest, search of a moving vehicle, or seizure of evidence in plain view—applied in this case. The police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant but did not. The permission granted by Ma. Luisa Veroy was limited to ascertaining the presence of rebel soldiers and did not constitute a valid waiver for a general search. The objects seized, being products of an illegal search, are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule. Consequently, the criminal case against the petitioners for illegal possession of firearms is DISMISSED.