People v. Dabon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Law enforcement agents applied for a search warrant after surveillance and test-buy operations confirmed petitioner Jorge Dabon (Dabon) was engaged in illegal drug activity. Search Warrant No. 15 was issued for violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. On July 26, 2003, CIDG operatives proceeded to Dabon's two-storey apartment. They invited witnesses, including Barangay Kagawad Ariel Angalot, to witness the search. Upon entering the premises, Dabon was found in one bedroom and Eusubio Dumaluan in the living room. During the search of the kitchen, drug paraphernalia were found. A frisk of Dumaluan yielded drug paraphernalia and empty decks of suspected shabu. In one of the bedrooms, three plastic sachets containing suspected shabu and various drug paraphernalia were recovered, hidden in folded clothes inside a drawer. The seized items were inventoried in the presence of witnesses. Chemical examination confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Two Informations were filed against Dabon for violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and one against Dumaluan for violation of Section 12. Procedural History: Dabon argued that he was surprised by the raid and was not allowed to witness the search, being ordered to stay in the living room while other household members were locked in another room. The RTC found the search valid and convicted Dabon for violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, upholding the presumption of regularity in the performance of police duties. Dabon's motion for reconsideration, questioning the admissibility of seized items due to his absence during the search, was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, ruling that Dabon waived his right to question the arrest by not objecting before arraignment and that the procedural flaw did not cast doubt on the seizure. Dabon's motion for reconsideration before the CA was also denied. The Petition: Dabon filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, questioning the CA's affirmation of his conviction and insisting on the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained against him.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence obtained against Dabon is admissible. Whether the search conducted in Dabon's residence was valid. Whether Dabon waived his right to question the admissibility of the evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals and the Omnibus Decision and Omnibus Order of the Regional Trial Court. Accused-appellant Jorge Dabon was acquitted of the crime charged against him, and his immediate release from confinement was ordered unless lawfully held for another cause. The shabu and other drug paraphernalia seized during the search were forfeited in favor of the State.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the evidence obtained against Dabon: The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained against Dabon is inadmissible. The Court emphasized that Section 2 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. It highlighted that Section 8 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court mandates that a search of a house, room, or any other premise 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. This rule is mandatory to ensure the regularity of the execution of a search warrant and to prevent arbitrary actions by law enforcement officers. In this case, it was undisputed that Dabon, the lawful occupant, was present in the residence during the search. However, the search of the bedroom where the drugs and paraphernalia were found was conducted only in the presence of one witness, Barangay Kagawad Angalot, and not in the presence of Dabon or any member of his family, nor in the presence of two witnesses as required by law. The testimonies of PO2 Datoy and Brgy. Kagawad Angalot confirmed that Dabon was in the sala and his wife was in the comfort room when the bedroom was searched. This violation of the mandatory requirement under Section 8 of Rule 126 renders the search unreasonable and the evidence obtained therefrom inadmissible under the exclusionary rule enshrined in Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that the exclusionary rule ensures that fundamental rights are not infringed upon. On the validity of the search conducted in Dabon's residence: The search conducted in Dabon's residence was deemed invalid due to non-compliance with Section 8 of Rule 126. The Court found that the hierarchy of witnesses prescribed by law was not followed. While the lawful occupants were present, they were not allowed to witness the search of the bedroom. Furthermore, the requirement of having two witnesses in the absence of the lawful occupant was also not met, as only one witness, Brgy. Kagawad Angalot, was present during the search of the bedroom. The Court noted that the contention of the Office of the Solicitor General that SK Chairman Angalot was present was belied by the testimonies of the police officer and the barangay kagawad. Failure to comply with these safeguards renders the search unreasonable and consequently, the evidence seized inadmissible. On whether Dabon waived his right to question the admissibility of the evidence: The Supreme Court ruled that Dabon did not waive his right to question the admissibility of the evidence, despite his failure to file a motion to suppress before arraignment. The Court clarified that Section 14 of Rule 126, which pertains to motions to quash or suppress, was intended to resolve conflicts on where to file such motions and not to preclude belated objections against the validity of a search warrant. Citing Ogayon v. People, the Court held that procedural rules cannot diminish or modify substantial rights. Dabon's failure to file a motion to suppress was not a sufficient indication of a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his fundamental constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases where life, liberty, and property are at stake, the standard for waiver requires it to be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, with awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. Dabon's objection was raised in his Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration before the trial court, indicating he did not abandon his claim.
Main Doctrine
Evidence obtained in violation of the mandatory requirement under Section 8 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that a search of a house, room, or any other premise 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, is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.