Bulauitan v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case originated from an Information filed on November 7, 2003, charging Edmund Bulauitan y Mauayan with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on October 3, 2003, police officers, armed with a search warrant, found three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, weighing 0.22 grams, inside Bulauitan's residence. Bulauitan denied ownership of the sachets, claiming he was in Tuguegarao City at the time of the search and suggesting a motive for false accusation due to a prior theft case involving his wife. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, Branch 5, in Criminal Case No. 10086, found Bulauitan guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day imprisonment, and a fine of P300,000.00. The RTC ruled that Bulauitan constructively possessed the drugs found in his house. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision in a Decision dated March 26, 2015, and subsequently denied Bulauitan's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 17, 2015. This led to the present petition. The Petition: Bulauitan filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The core of his argument, and the Court's focus, is that the search conducted in his residence was unreasonable and violated Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the search was not conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant or a member of his family, nor were the two designated witnesses (barangay kagawads) able to properly witness the search as they remained outside the house. Furthermore, Bulauitan's daughter, who was present, was prevented from observing the search of his room. Consequently, the evidence obtained, the shabu, should be deemed inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Issue(s)
Whether the search conducted in the residence of the petitioner was valid and reasonable under Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, considering the presence and role of witnesses and the lawful occupant. Whether the evidence obtained from the search is admissible in court, given the circumstances surrounding the search and the potential violation of the exclusionary rule.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and acquitted the petitioner Edmund Bulauitan y Mauayan of the crime charged.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the search: The Court held that the search conducted in Bulauitan's residence was unreasonable and violated Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This provision mandates that a search must be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant or a member of his family, or in their absence, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. The testimonies of the police officers themselves, as well as Bulauitan's daughter Maria and Barangay Kagawad Jerry Soliva, revealed significant irregularities. P/Insp. Bulayungan initially claimed Bulauitan was present, but PO3 Tagal testified that Bulauitan was out and the search proceeded with his consent given by his children and housekeeper. Crucially, Bulauitan's daughter, Maria, was effectively prevented from witnessing the search of her father's room as she was kept in the living room by PO3 Tagal, who searched belongings and asked her questions. Furthermore, Maria was instructed to leave the house to contact her father, and she was in the receiving room when SPO2 Baccay announced the discovery of the shabu inside the room, the door of which was half-closed. The designated witnesses, Kgd. Soliva and Kgd. Polonia, also did not witness the actual search, as they remained outside the residence. On the admissibility of evidence: The Court emphasized that a departure from the mandatory rule on witnesses renders the search unreasonable and the seized articles inadmissible under the exclusionary rule, citing People v. Go and People v. Del Castillo. Since the confiscated shabu constituted the corpus delicti of the crime, its inadmissibility led to Bulauitan's acquittal.
Main Doctrine
Evidence obtained from an unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding, as it is considered the fruit of the poisonous tree. A search conducted in violation of Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which mandates the presence of the lawful occupant or a member of his family, or two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality in the absence of the former, is deemed unreasonable.