The Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant listing multiple offenses is invalid, making any evidence obtained inadmissible. This decision underscores that authorities must adhere strictly to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The ruling safeguards individuals’ rights by ensuring that searches are specific, justified, and conducted lawfully.

When a Single Search Warrant Tries to Do Too Much: Examining Rights Violations

This case, Joemarie Mendoza y Bucad vs. People of the Philippines, revolves around a search warrant issued against Jay Tan for violations of Republic Act (RA) 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and RA 10591, the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act. During the search, law enforcement officers found Joemarie Mendoza in the residence, allegedly in possession of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. Mendoza was subsequently charged and convicted based on the evidence seized during the search. The Supreme Court, however, examined the validity of the search warrant and its impact on Mendoza’s rights.

The central legal issue is whether a search warrant that lists multiple offenses violates the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and whether evidence obtained under such a warrant is admissible in court. The Constitution, under Sec. 2, Art. III, protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, stating that warrants must be based on probable cause and particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized.

In line with this constitutional right, the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Sec. 4, Rule 126, requires that a search warrant should only be issued in connection with one specific offense. The purpose of this one-specific-offense rule is to prevent the issuance of a “scatter-shot warrant.” As the Supreme Court explained in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. Razon Alvarez:

[T]he Rules that a search warrant should be issued “in connection with one-specific offense” to prevent the issuance of a scatter-shot warrant. The one-specific-offense requirement reinforces the constitutional requirement that a search warrant should issue only on the basis of probable cause.

The Court found that the search warrant in this case was indeed defective because it covered violations of both RA 9165 and RA 10591. This violated the one-specific-offense rule, rendering the warrant null and void. The Court referenced several cases, including Vallejo v. Court of Appeals, where a warrant was invalidated for being issued for more than one offense.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that even if the search warrant covered two offenses, it should not be entirely invalidated and that the petitioner waived his right to question the validity of the search warrant by not filing a motion to quash. However, the Court firmly rejected this argument, asserting that the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is paramount.

Building on this principle, the Court addressed the admissibility of the evidence seized during the search. While the OSG contended that Mendoza, not being the target of the warrant (Jay Tan), could not question its validity, the Court disagreed. It referenced Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mendoza, clarifying that individuals affected by the implementation of a search warrant have the right to question its validity, regardless of whether they were the original target.

But the rules do not require Mendoza, et al. to be parties to the search warrant proceeding for them to be able to file a motion to suppress. It is not correct to say that only the parties to the application for search warrant can question its issuance or seek suppression of evidence seized under it.

Furthermore, the Court found the plain view doctrine inapplicable in this case. For the plain view doctrine to apply, the law enforcement officer must have a prior justification for the intrusion or be in a position to view a particular area lawfully. Here, the police officers’ entry into the premises was based on the invalid search warrant, negating any lawful justification for their presence.

The Court also clarified that while failure to object to an illegal arrest before arraignment constitutes a waiver of the right to question the arrest’s legality, it does not waive the right to challenge the admissibility of evidence seized during the arrest. The Court cited Dominguez v. People:

Well settled is the rule that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move to quash the information against him before his arraignment… However, this waiver to question an illegal arrest only affects the jurisdiction of the court over his person. It is well-settled that a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.

Finally, the Supreme Court noted critical lapses in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, mandates that after seizure and confiscation, a physical inventory and photograph of the items must be conducted immediately in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. In this case, there was no media or National Prosecution Service representative present, a requirement deemed essential in David v. People to ensure the integrity of the evidence and prevent suspicions of tampering or contamination.

Given the defective search warrant, the inapplicability of the plain view doctrine, and the failure to adhere to the chain of custody requirements, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and acquitted Joemarie Mendoza. The Court held that the evidence obtained was inadmissible, and the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of the crimes charged.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a search warrant listing multiple offenses is valid and whether evidence obtained under such a warrant is admissible in court. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not, protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.
What is the “one-specific-offense rule”?	The “one-specific-offense rule” requires that a search warrant be issued only for one specific offense to prevent “scatter-shot warrants.” This ensures the warrant is based on probable cause related to a particular crime.
Can someone who wasn’t the target of a search warrant question its validity?	Yes, according to this ruling, individuals affected by the implementation of a search warrant can question its validity, even if they weren’t the original target. This is especially true if their rights were violated during the search.
What is the plain view doctrine?	The plain view doctrine allows law enforcement to seize evidence without a warrant if it’s in plain sight, and the officer has a legal right to be in that location. However, this doctrine doesn’t apply if the initial intrusion was unlawful.
What happens if the chain of custody for evidence is broken?	If the chain of custody for evidence is broken, it can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence, potentially leading to its inadmissibility in court. This is particularly critical in drug-related cases.
What is the role of witnesses during the inventory of seized items in drug cases?	Witnesses, including an elected public official and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media, must be present during the inventory of seized items. Their presence is meant to ensure transparency and prevent evidence tampering.
Does waiving the right to question an arrest also waive the right to challenge seized evidence?	No, waiving the right to question the legality of an arrest doesn’t automatically waive the right to challenge the admissibility of evidence seized during that arrest. The admissibility of evidence is a separate legal issue.
What was the final outcome of this case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Joemarie Mendoza, ruling that the evidence obtained via the invalid search warrant was inadmissible. This underscores the importance of protecting constitutional rights against unlawful searches and seizures.

This case reinforces the importance of adhering to constitutional safeguards in criminal investigations. It underscores the need for law enforcement to obtain valid search warrants and follow proper procedures to ensure the admissibility of evidence in court. By strictly enforcing these protections, the judiciary protects individuals from unreasonable intrusions into their homes and lives.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JOEMARIE MENDOZA v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 248350, December 05, 2022