View full case

PEOPLE v. ELY POLICARPIO Y NATIVIDAD

FACTS:

The accused, Ely Policarpio, was indicted for Violation of Section 261 (q) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 and Violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. During the implementation of a search warrant, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) agents confiscated several items from Policarpio's house, including drug paraphernalia, sachets of suspected shabu, cash, and a .45 caliber Colt pistol. The confiscated items were marked by the PDEA agents and turned over to their Chief Investigator. Policarpio was immediately arrested and informed of his constitutional rights. Witnesses from the PDEA, Barangay Chairman Glesie Tangonan, and Forensic Chemist Roda Agcaoili testified to support the prosecution's case. The prosecution rested its case and formally offered its evidence, including the search warrant.

The case involves the conviction of Ely Policarpio for possession of illegal drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia, and violation of the COMELEC gun ban. On April 12, 2007, a search warrant was issued against Policarpio, authorizing the search of his house in Santiago City. The search warrant stated that there are sufficient reasons to believe that Policarpio is in possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and drug paraphernalia. The police officers conducted the search and allegedly found shabu and drug paraphernalia inside Policarpio's house.

Policarpio denied the charges and claimed that he was awakened by police officers knocking on his door on the day of the search. He alleges that the police officers pointed their guns at him and ordered him, his wife, and children to go out of the house. He denies being Junior Policarpio, as mentioned in the search warrant, and claims that his name is Ely Policarpio. He also denies signing the search warrant and alleges that the contents of the warrant were not explained to him. After the search, Barangay Chairman Tangonan arrived and signed a document. Policarpio was brought to the police station and later to court. He denies having signed a confiscation receipt and states that his mother was not a resident of his house at the time of the search.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Policarpio guilty of all charges and sentenced him accordingly. The RTC ruled that the search was legal because it was conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, stating that the prosecution established the elements of the crimes charged and upheld the validity of the search warrant. Policarpio appealed to the Supreme Court (SC), but his appeal was dismissed for failure to show reversible error in the CA's decision.

The case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by the accused-appellant, Policarpio, after he was found guilty and sentenced for violation of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165. In his motion, Policarpio insists on his innocence and raises several arguments against the validity of the search warrant and the compliance of the searching officers with the procedure prescribed under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. He specifically contends that the search warrant lacked specific details regarding the address to be searched and the items to be seized. Policarpio also claims that the alleged seized items were not immediately photographed and the inventory was not conducted in the presence of a representative of the media and DOJ officials. Finally, Policarpio argues that the prosecution evidence failed to establish the proper chain of custody of the confiscated items, which include plastic sachets of shabu and drug paraphernalia. Due to these reasons, Policarpio asserts his entitlement to acquittal of the charges against him.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Search Warrant No. 0085 is valid.

  2. Whether or not Search Warrant No. 0085 satisfies the requirement of particularity of description of the items to be seized.

  3. Whether or not the chain of custody rule was followed in this case.

  4. Whether the failure to comply with the presence of a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the physical inventory of the seized drugs and drug paraphernalia violates the requirement under Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165.

  5. What action is the respondent ordered to report to the Court?

  6. Within how many days should the respondent report to the Court?

RULING:

  1. The Court finds that Search Warrant No. 0085 is valid.

  2. Search Warrant No. 0085 satisfies the requirement of particularity of description of the items to be seized.

  3. The chain of custody rule was not discussed in this particular section of the case.

  4. The Supreme Court held that the failure to comply with the presence of a representative from the media and the DOJ during the physical inventory of the seized drugs and drug paraphernalia violates the requirement under Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165. In this case, the absence of a representative from the media and the DOJ casts doubt on the credibility and trustworthiness of the search and seizure, as well as the incrimination of the accused. The Court emphasized that the presence of these persons during the physical inventory guarantees protection against the planting of evidence and frame-up. Non-compliance with the requirement can only be excused if there are justifiable grounds and as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. However, no justifiable reason for the non-compliance was presented in this case. Therefore, the failure to comply with Section 21(a) of the IRR renders the seizure and custody of the drugs void and invalid.

  5. The respondent is ordered to report to the Court the action he has taken.

  6. The respondent should report to the Court within five (5) days from receipt of the order.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community.

  • Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others satisfies the constitutional requirement.

  • A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow.

  • The phrase "an undetermined amount of marijuana" satisfies the requirement for particularity in a search warrant.

  • The description "illegally in possession of undetermined quantity/amount of dried marijuana leaves and Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) and sets of paraphernalia" particularizes the things to be seized.

  • The chain of custody rule requires that real evidence be authenticated prior to its admission into evidence.

  • The presence of a representative from the media and the DOJ during the physical inventory of seized drugs and drug paraphernalia is required to guarantee against the planting of evidence and frame-up.

  • Non-compliance with the requirement may be excused if there are justifiable grounds and as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.

No specific legal principles or doctrines were mentioned in this case.