PEOPLE v. NUNEZ 591 SCRA 394 June 30, 2009 Article 3 Sectin 2! Re"ui#ite# $ % v%li& '%rr%nt (AC)S! In a search and seizure conducted based on reports of drug possession, the appellant’s room was surveyed in his presence while his family, PO2 Ortega and the two barangay officials remained in the living room. 3 pac!ets of shabu, lighters, improvised burners, tooters, and aluminum foil with shabu residue and a lady’s wallet containing P", #$ inside appellant’s dresser were found. %he group also confiscated confiscated a component, component, camera, camera, electric electric planer, planer, grinder, grinder, drill, drill, &igsaw, &igsaw, electric tester, and assorted carpentry tools on suspicion that they were ac'uired in e(change for shab shabu. u. )oll )ollow owin ing g the the sear search ch,, *PO *PO Ilaga Ilagan n issu issued ed a +ece +eceip iptt for for Prop Proper erty ty *eiz *eized ed and and a ertification of Orderly *earch which appellant signed. %he +% convicted appellant guilty, beyond reasonable doubt for -iolation of +epublic ct #"2/, as amended. ppellant elevated the case to this ourt on appeal, but the case was transferred to the ourt of ppeals where the ourt of ppeals rendered its decision affirming appellant’s conviction. *SSUES! . 0O1 there was an irregularity in the seizure of personal property conducted. +EL!
. SEC. 3. (Rule 126 of the Rules of Court) Personal property to be seized. search warrant warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property 4a5 *ub&ect of the offense6 4b5 *tolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense6 or 4c5 7sed or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
s a rule, only the personal properties described in the search warrant may be seized by the authorities. In the case at bar, Se%rc- %rr%nt N. 42 #/eci$ic%ll %ut-rie& t-e t%in $ et-%/-et%ine -&rc-lri&e #-%6u7 %n& /%r%/-ern%li%#7 nl. %hus, we are here constrained to point out an irregularity in the search conducted. ertainly, the lady’s wallet, cash, grinder, camera, component, spea!ers, electric planer, &igsaw, electric tester, saws, hammer, drill, and bolo were not encompassed by the word paraphernalia as they bear no relation to the use or manufacture of drugs. In seizing the said items then, the police officers e(ercised their own discretion and determined for themselves which items in appellant’s
Prepared by 8erric! 9. :im
residence they believed were ;proceeds of the crime; or ;means of committing the offense.; %his is, in our view, absolutely impermissible. %he purpose of the constitutional re'uirement that the articles to be seized be particularly described in the warrant is to limit the things to be ta!en to those, and only those particularly described in the search warrant 88 to leave the offiers of the la! !ith no disretion re"ardin" !hat artiles they should seize. search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to underta!e a fishing e(pedition to confiscate any and all !inds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. ccordingly, the ob&ects ta!en which were not specified in the search warrant should be restored to appellant.
Prepared by 8erric! 9. :im
