PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

RAUL NUÑEZ y REVILLEZA

591 SCRA 394. | June 30, 2009
Quisimbing, J.

Doctrine: Only the personal properties described in the search warrant may be seized by the
authorities.
FACTS
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 16, Art. 3 of RA 6425 also known
as the Dangerous Drugs Act. It is alleged that based on reports of drug possession, police
authorities conducted a search in the house of accused-appellant. Said warrant was duly presented
to the accused-appellant and the search was conducted in his presence. During the search, the
police officer found 31 packets of shabu, lighters, improvised burners, tooters, and aluminum foil
with shabu residue and a lady’s wallet containing ₱4,610 inside appellant’s dresser. The group
also confiscated a component, camera, electric planer, grinder, drill, jigsaw, electric tester, and
assorted carpentry tools on suspicion that they were acquired in exchange for shabu. Following
the search, SPO1 Ilagan issued a Receipt for Property Seized and a Certification of Orderly Search
which appellant signed. Based on this, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of the crime charged.
On appeal, the appellant contends that the shabu found in his room was planted. He also
assails the validity of the search warrants on the ground that it did not indicate his exact address
but only the barangay and street of his residence. Furthermore, he faults the manner of executing
the same because he alleges that none of the occupants witnessed the search.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N items not enumerated in the warrant may be seized?- NO.

It is undisputed in the case at bar that before the search was conducted, the search
warrant was presented to the accused-appellant and that the search was made in his
presence. However, he contends that there was a frame-up and presented his daughter as a
witness to the alleged planting of evidence in the bed of accused-appellant. Even assuming
arguendo that the same was true and an evidence was planted, the girl testified herself that
she merely saw one being planted. Given the foregoing, accused-appellant still needs to
account for the remaining 30 packs of shabu.
On the other hand, Sec. 3, Rule 126 expressly enumerates the property that may be
seized during a valid search namely (1) subject of the offense, (2) stolen/embezzled/fruits
of offense, (3) used/intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. Moreover,
as a general rule, only personal properties described in the search warrant may be seized
by police authorities. In the case at bar, the search warrant specifically authorized the taking
of shabu and paraphernalia(s) only. Based on the foregoing, the seizure of the lady’s wallet,
camera, grinder, component speakers et.al is impermissible since these items are not
encompassed in the world paraphernalia and have no relation to the use and manufacture
of drugs and the same must be returned to accused-appellant.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 19, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR.
H.C. No. 02420 is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the official custodian of the
objects taken during the search which are not otherwise regulated drugs or drug paraphernalia, is
ORDERED to return them to appellant.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1