G.R. Nos. 78347-49 November 9, 1987
ADOLFO OLAES and LINDA M. CRUZ, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. JUDGE ALICIA L. SANTOS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Adolfo Olaes and Linda Cruz filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to challenge the trial court’s admission of evidence seized under a search warrant and their extrajudicial confessions. They argued the search warrant was invalid for not specifying the offense with particularity, violating constitutional requirements for probable cause. They further contended their confessions were inadmissible for being obtained without the assistance of counsel, in violation of their constitutional rights.
The Solicitor General moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was procedurally defective as it failed to allege grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge and that any error was interlocutory and correctible only on appeal. Petitioners, in reply, conceded the procedural flaw but urged the Court to overlook technicalities to resolve the substantial constitutional issues immediately and avoid protracted litigation.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the search warrant was validly issued, and (2) whether the extrajudicial confessions are admissible as evidence.

RULING

The Court, while noting the petition was procedurally infirm as it challenged interlocutory orders, opted to resolve the substantive issues to expedite the proceedings. On the first issue, the search warrant was declared valid. Contrary to petitioners’ claim invoking Stonehill v. Diokno, the warrant was not constitutionally infirm. Although captioned for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. 6425) in general, its text expressly stated probable cause to believe petitioners possessed “marijuana dried stalks/leaves/seeds/cigarettes.” This described the items with particularity and left no ambiguity about the specific offense, satisfying constitutional requirements.
On the second issue, the extrajudicial confessions were ruled inadmissible. The sworn statements were taken without the assistance of counsel. Applying the standards in People v. Galit and the stricter provisions of the 1987 Constitution , any confession obtained without counsel, where the right was not knowingly waived in writing with counsel’s assistance, is inadmissible. Petitioners’ objection was sustained on this ground, despite no allegation they were denied counsel upon request. Consequently, the petition was partly granted. The evidence seized under the valid warrant was admissible, but the confessions were excluded. The temporary restraining order was lifted.