The Supreme Court held that evidence obtained during a search is inadmissible if the search was not conducted in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure. In this case, police officers, while executing a search warrant, prevented the homeowner’s daughter from witnessing the search of her father’s room. Because the lawful occupant was effectively prevented from witnessing the search, the Court found that the search was unreasonable and that the seized evidence—methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu)—was inadmissible. As a result, the conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs was overturned.

When Police Procedures Miss the Mark: How an Unlawful Search Led to an Acquittal

This case revolves around the delicate balance between law enforcement’s duty to combat crime and the individual’s constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches. Edmund Bulauitan was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs after a search of his residence yielded three sachets of shabu. The search was conducted under the authority of a warrant, but the manner in which it was executed became the focal point of the legal battle. Did the police follow proper procedure, or did their actions violate Bulauitan’s rights?

The narrative begins on October 3, 2003, when a team of police officers, armed with a search warrant, arrived at Bulauitan’s residence in Solana, Cagayan. The team included P/Insp. Kevin Bulayungan, SPO2 Lito Baccay, and PO3 Elizalde Tagal. Upon arrival, they were met by Bulauitan’s children and housekeeper, who informed them that Bulauitan was not home. Despite his absence, the police proceeded to search the premises, accompanied by two barangay kagawads as witnesses. It was during this search that SPO2 Baccay discovered three heat-sealed plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance in Bulauitan’s room.

Bulauitan, upon learning of the search and discovery, was arrested and subsequently charged with violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution argued that Bulauitan had constructive possession of the shabu found in his house. Bulauitan, however, denied owning the sachets, claiming that he was in Tuguegarao City tending to his meat shop at the time of the search. He also suggested that the informant who provided the basis for the search warrant had a grudge against him.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Bulauitan guilty, emphasizing the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, holding that all elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were present and that the chain of custody of the seized items was unbroken. The CA also stated that the search was properly implemented in the presence of Bulauitan’s children and housekeeper. However, the Supreme Court saw things differently.

The Supreme Court anchored its decision on the fundamental right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as enshrined in Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. This provision mandates that searches and seizures be carried out through a judicial warrant based on probable cause. Absent such a warrant or a valid exception, the search becomes “unreasonable.” More importantly, Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution dictates that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible in court. This is known as the exclusionary rule, designed to protect individuals from governmental overreach. The Court has consistently held that any evidence seized unlawfully cannot be used against the accused.

The Court scrutinized the implementation of the search warrant, focusing on Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates that searches of a house or premises must be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant or a member of their family. Only in their absence can the search be witnessed by two persons of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. This rule ensures transparency and safeguards against potential abuse by law enforcement.

In this case, conflicting testimonies emerged regarding Bulauitan’s presence during the search. P/Insp. Bulayungan testified that Bulauitan was present when the search commenced, while PO3 Tagal stated that Bulauitan was not in the premises. Moreover, the Court found that Bulauitan’s daughter, Maria, was effectively prevented from witnessing the search of her father’s room. PO3 Tagal kept her in the living room, searching the area and questioning her, while SPO2 Baccay conducted the search in the room. Maria was even instructed to leave the house to contact her father, further limiting her ability to observe the search. This conduct was a clear violation of the procedural safeguards outlined in Rule 126.

SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. — No search of a house, room or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

Furthermore, the two barangay kagawads who were present did not actually witness the search, remaining outside Bulauitan’s residence during the operation. This departure from the prescribed procedure, the Court reasoned, tainted the search with unreasonableness. By preventing the lawful occupant or a family member from observing the search, the police violated the spirit and letter of the law, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible.

The Court, citing People v. Go, emphasized the importance of adhering to the mandated procedure. In People v. Go, the Court stated:

The Rules of Court clearly and explicitly establishes a hierarchy among the witnesses in whose presence the search of the premises must be conducted. Thus, Section 8, Rule 126 provides that the search should be witnessed by “two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality” only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family.

Since the confiscated shabu was the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, and it was obtained through an unlawful search, the Court had no choice but to acquit Bulauitan. The Court reiterated its commitment to protecting individual liberties, even for those accused of crimes. The government’s campaign against drug addiction, however important, cannot justify violating constitutional rights. As Justice Holmes famously said, “I think it is less evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part.”

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the search conducted by the police officers was reasonable and in compliance with the requirements of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically regarding the presence of witnesses during the search.
Why was the search deemed unreasonable?	The search was deemed unreasonable because the police effectively prevented the lawful occupant’s daughter from witnessing the search of her father’s room, violating Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
What is the exclusionary rule?	The exclusionary rule is a principle that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial. It stems from the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
What is the significance of Section 8, Rule 126?	Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure outlines the procedure for conducting a search of a house or premises, requiring the presence of the lawful occupant or a family member, or in their absence, two witnesses from the same locality.
What was the corpus delicti in this case?	The corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, in this case, was the confiscated methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). It was the evidence used to prove the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
What constitutional right was at stake in this case?	The constitutional right at stake was the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed by Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
What was the final decision of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and acquitted Edmund Bulauitan of the crime charged, ruling that the seized evidence was inadmissible due to the unlawful search.
What is constructive possession?	Constructive possession refers to the ability to exercise control or dominion over an item, even if it is not in one’s immediate physical possession. In drug cases, it means having control over the location where the drugs are found.

The Bulauitan case serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural safeguards in law enforcement. While the fight against illegal drugs is a critical concern, it must be waged within the bounds of the Constitution. Violating individual rights in the pursuit of crime control undermines the very principles of justice and fairness that the legal system is designed to uphold.

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: Edmund Bulauitan y Mauayan v. People, G.R. No. 218891, September 19, 2016