FACTS:

Accused-appellant Roberto Salanguit is charged with violations of Republic Act No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act. In one case, he is charged with possessing and/or using methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) without the necessary license and/or prescription. In another case, he is charged with possession of marijuana without authorization.

A search warrant was obtained by Senior Inspector Rodolfo Aguilar and granted by the Regional Trial Court to search the residence of accused-appellant. Police officers, accompanied by an informer, forcibly entered the house and found substances believed to be drugs, including plastic bags and bricks of dried leaves. Accused-appellant was taken into custody and laboratory examination confirmed that the substances seized were indeed methamphetamine hydrochloride and marijuana.

Accused-appellant claims that the police conducted an illegal search and seizure, alleging that they ransacked his house and took his belongings without a proper search warrant. His mother-in-law testified to corroborate his account.

After the trial, accused-appellant was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. He appeals the decision, raising several grounds including the validity of the search warrant, the admissibility of the seized drugs as evidence, and the alleged use of excessive force by the police during the execution of the warrant.

In a separate case, Salanguit is arrested for alleged violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The police conducted a buy-bust operation where a confidential informant bought shabu from Salanguit and saw him store it inside his cabinet. The substance was confirmed to be shabu through a technical analysis. During the search conducted pursuant to a warrant, no drug paraphernalia was seized, but this does not invalidate the search warrant.

ISSUES:

1. Is the search warrant valid?

2. Is the marijuana seized admissible in evidence under the "plain view" doctrine?

3. Did the police use excessive force in enforcing the search warrant?

RULING:

1. Validity of the Search Warrant

   • The search warrant is partially valid. It is valid for the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) but not valid for the seizure of drug paraphernalia due to lack of probable cause. However, this defect does not invalidate the entire warrant.

2. Admissibility of Marijuana under the "Plain View" Doctrine

   • The marijuana seized is inadmissible as evidence. The police failed to demonstrate that the seizure of marijuana met the requirements of the "plain view" doctrine, which includes prior justification, inadvertent discovery, and immediate apparent illegality.

3. Excessive Force by the Police

   • The claim of excessive force is unsupported by reliable and competent evidence. The necessary force used by the police is justified as the occupants refused to open the door, and there were suspicious movements inside the house.

PRINCIPLES:

1. Probable Cause and Search Warrant Requirements

   • A search warrant must be based on probable cause personally determined by the judge, and it must particularly describe the place to be searched and items to be seized.

2. Severability of Warrant Provisions

   • If a search warrant validly describes certain items to be seized but improperly includes other items, only the invalid portion may be severed, and the valid portions remain enforceable.

3. Plain View Doctrine

   • For seizure under the "plain view" doctrine to be valid, there must be prior justification for the intrusion, the discovery must be inadvertent, and the incriminating nature of the evidence must be immediately apparent.

4. Use of Force in Execution of Search Warrant

   • The police may use reasonable force to enter a premises if entry is refused after notice of purpose and authority. Claims of excessive force must be supported by reliable and competent evidence.

5. Admissibility of Evidence

   • Evidence seized unlawfully, or in violation of constitutional rights, is inadmissible in court.