FACTS:

The case involves accused Redentor Dichoso and his wife Sonia Dichoso who were charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. Jaime Pagtakhan, another accused, was also charged separately. The three cases were consolidated for joint trial. A search warrant was applied for by the Narcotics Command and Search Warrant No. 028 was issued to search the residence of the Dichosos. During the search, suspected drugs and paraphernalia were found inside the Dichoso residence, as well as in a nipa house where Redentor, Jaime Pagtakhan, and two others were found. The search also extended to the main house but yielded no results.

The confiscated items were collected and marked by NARCOM members, and Dichoso and Pagtakhan were informed of the contents of the search documents and voluntarily affixed their signatures. They were brought to the NARCOM headquarters for further investigation. The confiscated items were later examined by a forensic chemist who confirmed the presence of illegal drugs. Dichoso was found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua with a fine, while Pagtakhan was sentenced to six years and one day of prision mayor. Dichoso filed an appeal, arguing for the reversal of the trial court's decision.

Dichoso raises several errors committed during the proceedings. He argues that the search warrant obtained and executed by the NARCOM agents is a general warrant and relies on the ruling in Stonehill vs. Diokno. He also claims that he was framed by police officers and that he was not properly informed of his rights. In addition, he contends that he cannot be convicted for the unlawful sale and distribution of prohibited drugs because he was not caught "in flagrante." He further asserts that the nipa house where the search was conducted does not belong to him. The Office of the Solicitor General opposes Dichoso's arguments and prays for the affirmation of the trial court's decision.

The case involves the issuance of Search Warrant No. 028, which was issued to search the residence of Redentor Dichoso and Sonia Dichoso. The warrant stated that there was probable cause to believe that the defendants were illegally in possession of marijuana leaves, Shabu, and paraphernalia. The warrant commanded any officer of the law to search the premises and seize the said items.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the search warrant was valid and complied with the requirements of the law.

2. Whether the search conducted in the appellant's house was illegal and the items obtained are inadmissible in evidence.

3. Whether the search warrant satisfies the requirement of particularity in the description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

4. Whether the search warrant is valid despite not mentioning the particular provision of the law that was violated.

5. Whether the appellant was framed.

6. Whether the exhibits "B," "C," and "D" are admissible as evidence.

7. Whether the notebook, Exhibit "F," should have been admitted as evidence

8. Whether it is necessary for the property to be searched or seized to be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is issued

9. Whether the appellant can be held guilty of unlawful sale of shabu and marijuana without being caught in the act

10. Whether the prosecution was able to prove that the handwritten entries in Exhibit "F" were made by the appellant.

11. Whether there is competent proof that the entries in Exhibit "F" refer to transactions regarding shabu or marijuana and that the figures therein pertain to prices of dangerous drugs.

12. Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to establish the unlawful sale of shabu or marijuana.

13. Whether or not the admission of the appellant that he used shabu "once in a while" is sufficient to establish his guilt of violation of Section 16 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

14. Whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied in imposing the penalty for illegal possession of regulated drugs.

RULING:

1. The search warrant was valid. While the caption of the search warrant stated "Violation of RA 6425 known as the 'Dangerous Drugs Act of 1992 as amended'", the body of the warrant particularized the place to be searched and the items to be seized, specifying the offense of illegal possession of marijuana and shabu and paraphernalia in connection therewith. Thus, the search warrant was not a general warrant as it complied with the requirements of specificity.

2. The search conducted in the appellant's house was legal. The search warrant was issued for the offense of illegal possession of marijuana and shabu and paraphernalia, and the items obtained during the search were related to this offense. Therefore, the items obtained were admissible in evidence against the appellant.

3. The search warrant satisfies the requirement of particularity in the description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

4. The search warrant is valid despite not mentioning the particular provision of the law that was violated.

5. The defense of frame-up requires strong and convincing evidence, which the appellant failed to provide. The presumption that law enforcement agents acted in the regular performance of their duties was not rebutted.

6. Exhibits "B," "C," and "D" partake of the nature of uncounselled extrajudicial confessions made while under the custody of the NARCOM agents, and therefore, violate the appellant's constitutional rights. These exhibits obtained admissions from the appellant regarding ownership through clever means, circumventing his right to counsel and to remain silent.

7. The notebook, Exhibit "F," was properly admitted as evidence because it fell under the plain view doctrine, which allows objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in that position to be seized and used as evidence.

8. It is not necessary for the property to be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is issued; it is sufficient that the property is under their control or possession.

9. The appellant cannot be held guilty of unlawful sale of shabu and marijuana without being caught in the act. However, there is overwhelming evidence to establish the appellant's guilt for illegal possession of shabu and marijuana, which is a separate offense.

10. The prosecution failed to prove that the handwritten entries in Exhibit "F" were made by the appellant. The prosecution did not present a handwriting expert or an ordinary witness familiar with the appellant's handwriting. Therefore, the conclusions drawn from Exhibit "F" are merely conjectural.

11. There is no competent proof that the entries in Exhibit "F" refer to transactions regarding shabu or marijuana and that the figures therein pertain to prices of dangerous drugs. The prosecution did not establish this link beyond reasonable doubt.

12. The prosecution failed to establish the unlawful sale of shabu or marijuana. No witness claims to have seen the appellant sell or deliver drugs to anyone. The evidence presented is insufficient to sustain a conviction for the sale of prohibited drugs.

13. The admission of the appellant that he used shabu "once in a while" helps ensure his conviction for violation of Section 16 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The unauthorized use of a regulated drug like shabu is one of the acts punishable under the said section.

14. The penalty for illegal possession of regulated drugs like shabu is imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years, with a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos. The same penalty is provided for illegal possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug. The court held that the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied. It provides that in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, with the minimum term not less than the minimum fixed by law and the maximum term not exceeding the maximum term prescribed by the same.

PRINCIPLES:

• Search warrants must be specific in describing the place to be searched and the items to be seized.

• One search warrant can cover multiple violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, which deals specifically with dangerous drugs and defines and penalizes offenses closely related or belonging to the same class or species.

• The particularity requirement of search warrants under the Bill of Rights.

• A search warrant may still be valid even if it does not explicitly mention the particular provision of the law that was violated, as long as the offense alleged is sufficiently specific.

• The defense of frame-up requires strong and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by law enforcement agents.

• Uncounselled extrajudicial confessions made while under custody violate the constitutional rights of an accused, such as the right to counsel and the right to remain silent.

• Plain view doctrine: Objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in that position are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence.

• Control or possession: It is not necessary for the property to be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is issued; it is sufficient that the property is under their control or possession.

• The possession of a considerable amount of a prohibited drug, coupled with the fact that the accused is not a user, may indicate an intention to sell and distribute the drug. However, this is not sufficient to convict the accused without other evidence to support the sale.

• In a prosecution for illegal sale of drugs, it is essential to prove the selling transaction and present the corpus delicti as evidence.

• The unlawful sale of drugs must be established by unequivocal and positive evidence.

• To be criminally liable for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the accused must be proven to be a drug dependent and must have voluntarily submitted himself for rehabilitation as required by the law. Occasional "use" of a dangerous drug is not the same as "drug dependence."

• The unauthorized use of a regulated drug, like shabu, is punishable under Section 16 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

• The penalty for illegal possession of regulated drugs, such as shabu and marijuana, is imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years, with a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos.

• The Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied in imposing a prison sentence for offenses punished by laws other than the Revised Penal Code.