UNITED LABORATORIES VS. ISIP
Joint affidavits of NBI Agents Roberto Divinagracia and
GR 163858 JUNE 28, 2005
Ponente: Callejo Sr., J.
RECIT READY: A Search Warrant was issued on January 27, 2004. Disudrin and
Inoflox were not listed in the search warrant issued by the court as among the
properties to be seized by the NBI agents. The warrant specifically authorized to seize
only “counterfeit Revicon multivitamins, finished or unfinished, and the documents
used in recording, manufacture and/or importation, distribution and/or sale, or the
offering for sale, sale and/or distribution of the said vitamins.” Officers failed to find any
counterfeit Revicon vitamins and instead seized sealed boxes which turned out to
contain Disudrin and Inoflox.
DOCTRINE: A search warrant, to be valid, must particularly describe the place to be
searched and the things to be seized. The officers of the law are to seize only those
things particularly described therein.
Plain view doctrine is not an exception to the warrant. The doctrine is not an exception
to the warrant. It merely serves to supplement the prior justification whether it be a
warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search as an incident to a lawful arrest or some
other legitimate reason for being present, unconnected with a search directed against
the accused. The doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search
from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges.
FACTS
1. Roland Besarra, Special Investigator III of NBI, filed an application for
issuance of a search warrant concerning the first and second floors of the
Shalimar Building at 1571 Aragon St. (formerly 1524 Lacson Avenue, Sta.
Cruz, Manila) before RTC Manila.
a. Building was occupied and/or used by Shalimar Philippines and
owned/operated by Ernesto Isip.
b. Subject of the search warrant:
i. Finished or unfinished products of UNILAB (REVICON
multivitamins)
ii. Sundry items (tags, labels, boxes, packages, wrappers,
receptacles, advertisements and/or paraphernalia used in
the offering for sale, sale and/or distribution of the said
vitamins
iii. Sales invoice, delivery receipts, official receipts, ledgers,
journals, purchase orders and all other books of accounts
and documents used in recording the manufacture and/or
importation, distribution and/or sale, or the offering for sale,
sale and/or distribution of the REVICON multivitamins
c. Appended thereto were the following:
i. Sketch of the building’s location
ii. Affidavit of Charile Rabe, asset of Armadillo Protection and
Security Agency, hired by UNILAB.
iii. Letter request of UNILAB for the monitoring of the
unauthorized production/manufacture of said drugs and if
warranted, for their seizure
iv. Letter complaint of UNILAB
v.
Rolando Besarra
2. Shalimar Building has six floors. It has a tight security arrangement so Rabe
was instructed to take pictures of the area especially were the manufacturing
operations take place. He was able to take pictures which were incorporated
into the Search Warrant Application.
3. January 27, 2004 - Search Warrant was implemented at 430pm by the two
NBI agents in coordination with UNILAB employees.
4. No fake REVICON multivitamins were found. What they found were sealed
boxes at the first and second floors of Shalimar Building (1571 Aragon Street,
Sta, Cruz, Manila):
a. 792 bottles of Disudrin 60 ml
b. 30 boxes (100 pieces each) of Inoflox 200 mg
5. The opening of the sealed boxes was done in the presence of Isip.
6. Agent filed a Return of Search Warrant alleging that no other articles/items
other than those mentioned in the warrant and inventory sheet were seized.
He prayed that 10 boxes of Disudrin 60ml and at least a box of Inoflox 200mg
be turned over to the custody of BFAD for examination.
7. Court issued a motion in the condition that the turn over be made before the
court, in the presence of a representative from respondents and the court.
8. Respondents filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Search Warrant or to
Suppress Evidence. They contended the following:
a. Search was conducted at the first, second, third and fourth floors of
the building at 1524-A, Lacson Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila, where
items in “open display” were allegedly found.
b. The address was different from the one stated in the search warrant
(Aragon Street).
c. NBI officers seized Disudrin and Inoflox products which were not
included in the list of properties to be seized.
9. UNILAB in collaboration with NBI, replied:
a. Insisted that the search was limited to the first and second floors of
Shalimar Building located at the corner of Aragon and Lacson
Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila.
b. Pointed out that 1524 Lacson Avenue was the old address and the
new address was 1571 Aragon Street.
10. March 10, 2004 - Trial Court issued an Order granting respondents’ motion,
on the ground that the seized items were not those described in the search
warrant.
a. It issued an advisory that the seized articles could no longer be
admitted in evidence against respondents in any proceedings, as
the search warrant was already quashed.
11. UNILAB argued that the seizure of the items was justified by the PLAIN VIEW
DOCTRINE.
12. Respondents’ reply:
a. Objected to the appearance of the of UNILAB’s counsel, contending
that he could not appear for the People of the Philippines.
b. Insisted that the items seized were contained in boxes at the time of
the seizure at 1524-A Lacson Avenue corner Aragon Street, Sta,
Cruz Manila, and were not incriminating on plain view doctor.
c. Shalimar Laboratories is authorized to manufacture galenical
preparations of:
i. Povidone Iodine
 ii. Chamomile Oil
iii. Salicylic Acid
iv. Hydrogen Peroxide
v. Aceite de Alcamforado
vi. Aceite de Manzanilla
d. Averred that BFAD was the authorized government agency to file
an application for a search warrant.
13. UNILAB’s reply:
a. It had the personality to file the motion for reconsideration because
it sought for the filing of the search warrant
b. It was proscribed by Rule126 of the RRCP from participating in the
proceedings and filings.
c. It may intervene through counsel under Sec. 16 of Rule 110 as the
offended party or the holder of a license to operate.
14. BFAD submitted to the court the results of Disudrin and Inoflox samples:
actual component of Disudrin and Inoflox failed the test.
15. TRIAL COURT: denied UNILAB’s motion for reconsideration. Search warrant
suffered from a fatal infirmity hence cannot be sustained.
ISSUES
1. WON the seizure of the sealed boxes which, when opened, contained
Disudrin syrup and Inoflox, were valid under the plain view doctrine.
RULING: UNILAB and NBI failed to prove the essential requirements for the
application of plain view doctrine. The assailed orders of RTC are affirmed.
RATIO
1. A search warrant, to be valid, must particularly describe the place to be
searched and the things to be seized. The officers of the law are to seize only
those things particularly described therein.
2. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to
undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of
evidence or articles relating to a crime. The search is limited in scope so as
not to be general or explanatory. Nothing is left to the discretion of the officer
executing the warrant.
3. It is true that things not described in the warrant may be seized under the
plain view doctrine. However, seized things not described in the warrant
cannot be presumed as plain view. The State must adduce evidence to prove
that the elements for the doctrine to apply are present, namely:
a. the executing law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an
initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position from which he can
view a particular order;
b. the officer must discover incriminating evidence inadvertently; and
c. it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items they
observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise
subject to seizure.
4. The doctrine is not an exception to the warrant. It merely serves to
supplement the prior justification whether it be a warrant for another object,
hot pursuit, search as an incident to a lawful arrest or some other legitimate
reason for being present, unconnected with a search directed against the
accused.
5. The immediate requirement means that the executing officer can, at the time
of discovery of the object or the facts therein available to him, determine
probable cause of the objects incriminating evidence -- probable cause must
be the direct result of the officer’s instantaneous sensory perception of the
object. The object is apparent if the executing officer had probable cause to
connect the object to criminal activity. The incriminating nature of the
evidence becomes apparent in the course of the search, without the benefit
of any unlawful search or seizure. It must be apparent at the moment of
seizure.
6. The requirement of inadvertence, on the other hand, means that the officer
must not have known in advance of the location of the evidence and intend
to seize it. Discovery is not anticipated.
7. Disudrin and/or Inoflox were not listed in the search warrant issued by the
court a quo as among the properties to be seized by the NBI agents. The
warrant specifically authorized the officers only to seize counterfeit Revicon
multivitamins, finished or unfinished, and the documents used in recording,
manufacture and/or importation, distribution and/or sale, or the offering for
sale, sale and/or distribution of the said vitamins. The implementing officers
failed to find any counterfeit Revicon multivitamins, and instead seized sealed
boxes which, when opened at the place where they were found, turned out
to contain Inoflox and Disudrin.
a. It was thus incumbent on the NBI and UNILAB to prove that the
items were seized on plain view.
8. It is not enough that the sealed boxes were in the plain view of the NBI agents.
However, the NBI failed to present any of officers who were present when the
warrant was enforced to prove that the sealed boxes was discovered
inadvertently, and that such boxes and their contents were incriminating and
immediately apparent.
9. It must be stressed that only the enforcing officers had personal knowledge
whether the sealed boxes and their contents thereof were incriminating and
that they were immediately apparent. There is even no showing that the NBI
agents knew the contents of the sealed boxes before they were opened. In
sum then, UNILAB and NBI failed to prove that the plain view doctrine applies
to the seized items.