People v. Tee G.R. Nos.

140546-47, January 20, 2003

FACTS: Modesto Tee was a Chinese national and a businessman in Baguio City who bought sacks of marijuana and stored them in a rented room of Danilo Abratiques grandmother house managed by Abratiques aunt Nazarea Abreau. Abratique, a Baguio-based taxi driver, was Tees acquaintance whom he hired in transporting the contraband. Fearful of getting involved, Abratique and Nazarea phoned the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and disclosed what had transpired. NBI, then, conducted surveillance at Nazareas place together with the Philippine National Police Narcotics Command (PNP NARCOM). When the appellant did not show up, the NBI decided to enter the room that Tee rented after Nazarea granted them permission. NBI searched the rented premises and found four (4) boxes and thirteen (13) sacks of marijuana, totaling 336.93 kilograms. Later that evening, NBI Special Agent Darwin Lising, with Abratique as his witness, applied for a search warrant from RTC Judge Antonio Reyes. Judge Reyes, after questioning Lising and Abratique, issued warrant directing the NBI to search Tees residence for marijuana. Thereafter, NBI and PNP NARCOM proceeded to Tees residence and served the warrant upon Tee himself. The search was witnessed by Tees family, barangay officials, and members of the media. The law enforcers found 26 boxes and a sack of dried marijuana, totaling 591.81 kilograms. Tee was arrested for illegal possession of marijuana. In his defense, Tee argued that the evidence for prosecution was inadmissible since they were illegally obtained through an unlawful search. He contended: that the description on the search warrant which says an undetermined amount of marijuana was too general, making it void for vagueness; the address indicated in the search warrant did not clearly indicate the place to be searched; and, that the NBI had not complied with the constitutional requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant. ISSUE: WON the search warrant is valid? RULING: YES, the search warrant is valid. The Court ruled that Tees contention the phrase an undetermined amount of marijuana failed to satisfy the requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution that the things to be seized must be particularly described is untenable. The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of description of the things to be seized is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify the

properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. However, it is not required that technical precision of description be required, particularly, where by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general , since the requirement of a technical description would mean that no warrant could issue. The search warrant in the present case, given its nearly similar wording, undetermined amount of marijuana or Indian hemp, in our view, has satisfied the Constitutions requirements on particularity of description. The description therein is: (1) as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; (2) expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which the peace officers may be guided in making the search and seizure; and (3) limits the things to be seized to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Said warrant imposes a meaningful restriction upon the objects to be seized by the officers serving the warrant. Thus, it prevents exploratory searches, which might be violative of the Bill of Rights. As to the issue of the particularity of the place, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) pointed out that the address stated in the warrant was as specific as can be. The NBI even submitted a detailed sketch of the premises prepared by Abratique; thus, ensuring that there would be no mistake. The Court explained that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness.