CASE DIGEST : JORGE DABON vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 208775 January 22, 2018

 

Facts

Acting on surveillance and a test-buy operation indicating that Jorge Dabon was engaged in illegal drug activities, police officers obtained Search Warrant No. 15 to search his residence for violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). During the search, authorities recovered sachets of shabu and drug paraphernalia. Although Dabon and his wife were present inside the house, they were not allowed to witness the search. Instead, the officers conducted the search in the presence of only one barangay official, in violation of Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that a search be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant or, if unavailable, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. The RTC convicted Dabon of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Issue

Whether the evidence seized during the implementation of the search warrant was admissible despite the police officers' non-compliance with the mandatory witness requirement under Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and whether such non-compliance warranted Dabon's acquittal.

Held

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Dabon. It held that Section 8, Rule 126 is mandatory and was enacted to ensure the regularity of the execution of search warrants and to prevent abuses, evidence planting, and violations of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures under Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Since Dabon and his wife were present but were prevented from witnessing the search, and only one barangay official was present instead of the required witnesses, the search was improperly executed. Consequently, the seized drugs and drug paraphernalia became inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule under Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits the use of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights. The Court further ruled that Dabon's failure to file a pre-arraignment motion to suppress the evidence did not amount to a waiver of his constitutional rights, as procedural rules cannot override constitutional guarantees. Without the illegally seized evidence, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in his acquittal, although the seized contraband remained forfeited in favor of the State