People vs. Del Rosario

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NORMANDO DEL ROSARIO

G.R. No. 109633 July 20, 1994

MELO, J.:

A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a finishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime.

A raiding team was organized to buy shabu from appellant and after buying from appellants’ house, the raiding team will implement search warrant. PO1 Luna with a companion proceeded to appellant's house to implement the search warrant. Barangay Capt. Maigue, Norma del Rosario and appellant witnessed the search at appellant's house. They found black canister constaining shabu and a paltik .22 caliber.  At police station, the seized items were taped and initialed. In addition, the search warrant implemented by the raiding party authorized only the search and seizure of shabu and paraphernalia for the use thereof and no other.

ISSUE: Whether or not police officers can seize items not mentioned in search warrant.

RULING: NO

The Constitution itself (Section 2, Article III) and the Rules of Court (Section 3, Rule 126) specifically mandate that the search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. Thus, the search warrant was no authority for the police officers to seize the firearm which was not mentioned, much less described with particularity, in the search warrant. Neither may it be maintained that the gun was seized in the course of an arrest, for as earlier observed, accused-appellant's arrest was far from regular and legal. Said firearm, having been illegally seized, the same is not admissible in evidence. The Constitution expressly ordains the exclusion in evidence of illegally seized articles.

Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Section 3[2], Article III, Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines).