Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

G.R. No.

93516 August 12, 1992 Upon entering the house, the group, as well as the
Barangay Captain, saw radio sets, pamphlets entitled "Ang
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Bayan," xerox copiers and a computer machine. They also
vs. found persons who were companions of Luz Tanciangco
BASILIO DAMASO @ Bernardo/BERNIE MENDOZA @ KA (namely, Teresita Calosa, Ricardo Calosa, Maries Calosa, Eric
DADO, accused-appellant. Tanciangco and Luzviminda Morados). The group requested
the persons in the house to allow them to look around.
Facts When Luz Tanciangco opened one of the rooms, they
On June 18, 1988, Lt. Candido Quijardo with his saw books used for subversive orientation, one M-14 rifle
companion were sent to verify the presence of CPP/NPA ammunitions, Kenwood radio, artificial beard, maps of the
members in Barangay Catacdang, Arellano-Bani, Dagupan Philippines and other items.
City. There, they apprehended a number of people including They confiscated the articles and brought them to
Berlina Aritumba. Upon interrogation they found out that their headquarters for final inventory and the people for
there was an underground safe house at Grace Village so investigation. Said persons revealed that Mendoza(Damaso)
they proceeded there and found subversive documents was the lessee of the house and owned the items
,firearms and other docs. confiscated therefrom.
The group then proceeded to Bonuan, Dagupan City, Basilio DAMASO @ Bernardo/Bernie Mendoza @ KA DADO,
and put under surveillance the rented apartment of was charged, for his possession of one (1) M14 Rifle with
Rosemarie Aritumba, sister of Berlina Aritumba whom they magazine and Fifty-Seven (57) live ammunition in
earlier arrested. They interviewed Luzviminda Morados, a connection with the crime of subversion, for Violation of
visitor of Rosemarie Aritumba. Republic Act 1700, as amended by Executive Order No. 276.
In her interview Morados stated that she worked with
Bernie Mendoza, herein appellant. She guided the group to Mendoza (Damaso) pleaded not guilty to the crime
the house rented by appellant and when they reached the charged. Hid counsel interposed his objections to the
house, the group found that it had already been vacated by admissibility of the prosecution's evidence on grounds of its
the occupants. Morados was hesitant to give the new being hearsay, immaterial or irrelevant and illegal for lack of
address of Bernie Mendoza, so they requested the Barangay a search warrant.
Captain of the place to point out the new house rented by
Mendoza. Issue : WON the search warrant is valid?

The group together with Morado went to the said Ruling: NO.
house and saw Luz Tanciangco outside. They told her that
they already knew that she was a member of the NPA in the SC find that there are serious flaws in the method
area. She denied it at first but when she saw Morados she used by the law officers in obtaining evidence against the
requested the group to go inside the house. accused-appellant but also that the evidence as presented
against him is weak to justify conviction.
The Solicitor General claims that the group of Lt. Quijardo authorities to dispense with a search warrant. But the record
entered the appellant's house upon invitation of Luz is silent on this point. The fact that they came to the house
Tanciangco and Luzviminda Morados, helper of the of the appellant at nighttime does not grant them the
appellant; that when Luz Tanciangco opened one of the license to go inside his house
rooms, they saw the subversive items that technically
speaking, there was no search as the group was voluntarily
shown the articles used in subversion and that a search may
be validly conducted without search warrant with the The records of this case also show that the accused-
consent of the person searched in this case, appellant's appellant was singled out as the sole violator of P.D. No.
helper and Luz Tanciangco allowed them to enter and to 1866, in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with
look around the appellant's house; and that since the the crime of subversion. Yet, there is no substantial and
evidence seized was in plain view of the authorities, the credible evidence to establish the fact that the appellant is
same may be seized without a warrant. allegedly the same person as the lessee of the house where
the M-14 rifle and other subversive items were found or the
The SC does not agree. In the case at bar, the records show owner of the said items.
that appellant was not in his house at that time Luz
Tanciangco and Luz Morados, his alleged helper, allowed the When the witnesses were presented for questioning it
authorities to enter The court no evidence that would turned out that testimonies are hearsay because they
establish the fact that Luz Morados was indeed the testified on matters not on their own personal knowledge.
appellant's helper or if it was true that she was his helper,
that the appellant had given her authority to open his house Even assuming for the sake of argument that the appellant
in his absence. The prosecution likewise failed to show if Luz is the lessee of the house, the case against him still will not
Tanciangco has such an authority. Without this evidence, the prosper, the reason being that the law enforcers failed to
authorities' intrusion into the appellant's dwelling cannot be comply with the requirements of a valid search and seizure
given any color of legality. proceedings.

While the power to search and seize is necessary to Another factor which illustrates the weakness of the case
the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law against the accused-appellant is in the identification of the
enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of gun which he was charged to have illegally possessed. In
the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient the amended information (supra, pp. 1-2), the gun was
importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of described as an M-14 rifle with serial no. 1249935. Yet, the
government (Rodriguez v. Evangelista, 65 Phil. 230, 235). As gun presented at the trial bore a different serial number
a consequence, the search conducted by the authorities was
illegal. It would have been different if the situation here
demanded urgency which could have prompted the