FULL CASE: RA 9165,7 

the accusatory portion of

which reads:Cha
nRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Mauayan vs. People That on or about October 03, 2003, in
the Municipality of Solana, Province of
G.R. No. 218891, September 19, Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of
2016 this Honorable Court, the said
accused, [Bulauitan], without authority,
Petitioner: did then and there willfully[,]
unlawfully[,] and feloniously have in his
EDMUND BULAUITAN Y MAUAYAN
possession and under his control and
Respondent: custody three (03) pieces of heat
sealed plastic sachet containing
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug commonly known
D E C I S I O N: as shabu which he kept inside his
residence/dwelling at Centro
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Northeast, Solana, Cagayan weighing
0.22 grams which dangerous drug was
Assailed in this petition for review confiscated by elements of the PNP
on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated Solana, Cagayan which conducted a
March 26, 2015 and the search at the residence/dwelling of the
3
Resolution  dated June 17, 2015 of the accused by virtue of Search Warrant
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 21 issued by Executive Judge,
No. 36117, which affirmed the Honorable VILMA T[.] PAUIG of RTC
Decision4 dated September 20, 2013 of Branch II, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao which resulted to the confiscation of
City, Cagayan, Branch 5 (RTC) in the above-mentioned dangerous drug
Criminal Case No. 10086, finding as the accused while in possession
petitioner Edmund Bulauitan y thereof do not have necessary permit
Mauayan (Bulauitan) guilty beyond and/or authority [sic].
reasonable doubt, for violating Section
11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) CONTRARY TO LAW.8chanrob
9165,5 otherwise known as the lesvirtuallawlibrary
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act The prosecution alleged that on
of 2002." October 3, 2003, the Philippine
National Police of Solana, Gagayan
The Facts constituted a team headed by P/Insp.
Kevin Bulayungan (P/Insp.
The instant case stemmed from an Bulayungan) as leader, with SPO2 Lito
Information6 dated November 7, 2003 Baccay (SPO2 Baccay) and PO3
filed before the RTC, charging Elizalde Tagal (PO3 Tagal) as search
Bulauitan of illegal possession of officer and investigator, respectively, to
dangerous drugs, defined and implement a search warrant issued by
penalized under Section 11, Article II of Executive Judge Vilma T. Pauig to
search Bulauitan's residence. Before
1
going to the target residence, the owning the sachets allegedly
search team first went to the house of recovered by the search team in his
Barangay Chairman Jane Busilan, who house. He narrated that in the morning
in turn, assigned Kagawad (Kgd.) Jerry of the fateful day, he went with his wife
Soliva (Kgd. Soliva) and Kgd. Herald to Tuguegarao City to tend to their
de Polonia (Kgd. Polonia) as search meat shop. He eventually received a
witnesses. Upon arriving at Bulauitan's call from his daughter, Maria Bulauitan
residence, the search team was met by (Maria), informing him that policemen
Bulauitan's two (2) children and are in their house and conducting a
housekeeper, who informed them that search therein, prompting him to
Bulauitan was not home. This immediately go home. Upon reaching
notwithstanding, the search team his house, the policemen informed him
explained to the children and that they recovered shabu from his
housekeeper the reason for their room, and thus, arrested him. Finally,
presence, prompting the latter to allow Bulauitan averred that Joseph Juan -
them inside the house and conduct the the person who executed the affidavit
search. SPO2 Baccay then proceeded in support of the application for search
to Bulauitan's room and there, warrant — wanted to get even with him
discovered three (3) heat-sealed as his wife testified against Juan in a
plastic sachets containing white theft case. Upon arraignment,
crystalline substance. Suspecting that Bulauitan pleaded not guilty to the
the contents are shabu, the search charges against him.10chanrobleslaw
team showed the sachets to the
children and housekeeper and The RTC Ruling
photographed the same. SPO2 Baccay
then gave the sachets to P/Insp. In a Decision11 dated September 20,
Bulayungan, who in turn, handed them 2013, the RTC found Bulauitan
over to PO3 Tagal who wrapped the guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
confiscated items with a piece of paper the crime charged, and accordingly,
for transport to the Solana PNP sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
Station. When Bulauitan arrived at his twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as
residence, the search team effected minimum, to fourteen (14) years, two
his arrest and took him to the police (2) months, and one (1) day, as
station with the seized sachets. Upon maximum, and to pay a fine in the
arrival thereat, PO3 Tagal prepared the amount of
12
police blotter and request for laboratory P300,000.00. chanrobleslaw
examination, marked the sachets with
his initials, and delivered the same to The RTC found that Bulauitan
forensic chemist S/Insp. Myrna constructively possessed the sachets
Madriaga Tulauan of the PNP Crime containing shabu as they were found
Laboratory. A qualitative examination inside his house where he exercised
revealed that the three (3) plastic dominion and control. In this relation,
sachets contained an aggregate of the RTC opined that the policemen
0.22 gram of shabu.9chanrobleslaw must be accorded the presumption of
regularity in the performance of their
In his defense, Bulauitan denied official duties, especially in the
2
absence of any evidence from At the outset, it must be stressed that
Bulauitan to show in criminal cases, an appeal throws the
13
otherwise. chanrobleslaw entire case wide open for review and
the reviewing tribunal can correct
Aggrieved, Bulauitan elevated his errors, though unassigned in the
conviction before the CA. appealed judgment, or even reverse
the trial court's decision based on
The CA Ruling grounds other than those that the
parties raised as errors.
In a Decision14 dated March 26,
2015, the CA affirmed Bulauitan's The appeal confers the appellate court
conviction. It held that all the full jurisdiction over the case and
elements of illegal possession of renders such court competent to
dangerous drugs are present, examine records, revise the judgment
considering that Bulauitan without any appealed from, increase the penalty,
authority constructively possessed the and cite the proper provision of the
seized sachets containing shabu as penal law.17chanrobleslaw
they were found inside his house. The
CA further held that the prosecution In this light and as will be explained
had established an unbroken chair, of hereunder, the Court is of the view
custody of the seized sachets. Finally, that Bulauitan's conviction must be
the CA ruled that the search which set aside.
yielded the seized sachets was
properly implemented as it was done in Section 2,18 Article III of the 1987
the presence of Bulauitan's two (2) Constitution mandates that a search
children and and seizure must be carried out
15
housekeeper. chanrobleslaw through or on the strength of a
judicial warrant predicated upon the
Aggrieved, Bulauitan moved for existence of probable cause, absent
reconsideration which the CA denied in which such search and seizure
a Resolution16 dated June 17, 2015; becomes "unreasonable" within the
hence, this petition. meaning of the said constitutional
provision. To protect the people from
The Issue Before the Court
unreasonable searches and seizures,
Section 3 (2),19 Article III of the 1987
The issue for the Court's resolution is
Constitution provides that evidence
whether or not Bulauitan's conviction
obtained from unreasonable
for illegal possession of dangerous
searches and seizures shall be
drugs, defined and penalized under
inadmissible in evidence for any
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165,
purpose in any proceeding. In other
should be upheld.
words, evidence obtained and
The Court's Ruling confiscated on the occasion of such
unreasonable searches and seizures
The appeal is meritorious. are deemed tainted and should be
excluded for being the proverbial fruit
of a poisonous tree.20chanrobleslaw
3
 As pointed out earlier, the members of
It must, however, be clarified that a the raiding team categorically admitted
search warrant21 issued in accordance that the search of the upper floor,
with the provisions of the Revised which allegedly resulted in the
Rules of Criminal Procedure does not recovery of the plastic bag containing
give the authorities limitless discretion the shabu, did not take place in the
in implementing the same as the same presence of either the lawful occupant
Rules provide parameters in the proper of the premises, i.e. appellant (who
conduct of a search. Section 8, Rule was out), or his son Jack Go (who was
126 of the aforesaid Rules, states handcuffed to a chair on the ground
that:ChanR floor). Such a procedure, whereby
oblesVirtualawlibrary the witnesses prescribed by law are
SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or prevented from actually observing
premises to be made in presence of and monitoring the search of the
two witnesses. — No search of a premises, violates both the spirit
house, room or any other premises and letter of the law:
shall be made except in the presence
of the lawful occupant thereof or any chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryx x x x
member of his family or in the absence
of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient That the raiding party summoned
age and discretion residing in the same two barangay kagawads to witness the
locality. search at the second floor is of no
moment. The Rules of Court clearly
Under this provision, a search under and explicitly establishes a
the strength of a warrant is required to hierarchy among the witnesses in
be witnessed by the lawful occupant of whose presence the search of the
the premises sought to be searched. It premises must be conducted. Thus,
must be stressed that it is only upon Section 8, Rule 126 provides that
their absence that their presence may the search should be witnessed by
be replaced by two (2) persons of "two witnesses of sufficient age and
sufficient age and discretion residing in discretion residing in the same
the same locality. In People v. locality" only in the absence of
Go,22 the Court held that a departure either the lawful occupant of the
from the said mandatory rule - by premises or any member of his
preventing the lawful occupant or a family. Thus, the search of appellant's
member of his family from actually residence clearly should have been
witnessing the search and choosing witnessed by his son Jack Go who was
two (2) other witnesses observe the present at the time. The police officers
search - violates the spirit and letter of were without discretion to substitute
the law, and thus, taints the search their choice of witnesses for those
with the vice of unreasonableness, prescribed by the law.
rendering the seized articles
inadmissible due to the application of x x x x
the exclusionary rule, viz.:ChanRoble
sVirtualawlibrary The raiding team's departure from
the procedure mandated by Section
4
8, Rule 126 of tote Rules of Court, search in accordance with Section 8,
taken together with the numerous Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of
other irregularities attending the Criminal Procedure.
search of appellant's residence,
tainted the search with the vice of In his testimony, P/Insp. Bulayungan
unreasonableness, thus compelling was adamant that Bulauitan was
this Court to apply the exclusionary present when the search was
rule and declare the seized articles commenced, to wit:Chan
inadmissible in evidence. This must RoblesVirtualawlibrary
necessarily be so since it is this Court's [Asst. Pros. Frederick D. Aquino (Pros.
solemn duty to be ever watchful for the Aquino)]: And was [Bulauitan] then
constitutional rights of the people, and present when you implemented the
against any stealthy encroachments search warrant?
thereon. In the oft-quoted language of
Judge Learned Hand:Chan [P/Insp. Bulayungan]: Yes, sir.
RoblesVirtualawlibrary
As we understand it, the reason for x x x x
the exclusion of evidence
competent as such, which has been [Pros. Aquino]: So after showing to
unlawfully acquired, is that the accused a copy of the search
exclusion is the only practical way warrant, what did the members of
of enforcing the constitutional your team do, if any?
privilege. In earlier times the action of
trespass against the offending official [P/Insp. Bulayungan]: We conducted
may have been protection enough; but an orderly search at the residence
that is true no longer. Only in case the of the accused I Bulauitan], sir.
prosecution which itself controls the
seizing officials, knows that it cannot x x x
profit by their wrong, will that wrong be
repressed.23 (Emphases and [Atty. Rolando C. Acacio (Atty. Acacio)]
underscoring supplied) So you mean to say that [Bulauitan]
was not present when you went to
In People v. Del Castillo,24 the Court implement the search warrant?
similarly held that the search of the
premises must be witnessed by the [P/Insp. Bulayungan]: He was present,
lawful occupant or the family members; sir.
otherwise, the search become
unreasonable, thus rendering the [Atty. Acacio]: At what point in time
seized items inadmissible under the was he present Mr. Witness?
exclusionary rule.
[P/Insp. Bulayungan]: When we
In this case, a judicious perusal of the introduced ourselves as policemen
records reveals that the policemen and tell our purpose of being there,
involved in the search of Bulauitan's [Bulauitan] arrived, sir.
residence — as shown in their own
testimonies - did not conduct the x x x x
5
 [P/Insp. Bulayungan] if we continue
[Atty. Acacio]: But at that time that [sic] to search the house of
there was a sort of reluctance you [Bulauitan] considering that the
know for a fact that the accused was owner of the house is not around,
not in their house? Ma'am.

[P/Insp. Bulayungan]: He was there x x x x

already, sir.
[Pros. Israel]: And what is the reply of
[Atty. Acacio]: He was there? this [P/Insp. Bulayungan]?

[P/Insp. Bulayungan]: Yes sir because [PO3 Tagal]: He said that we will

before we enter the house, that is continue, Ma'am.
the time that [Bulauitan] was already
there after we introduced ourselves x x x x
as police officers and tell our
purpose of being [Pros. Israel]: Alright, Mr.Witness, after
25
there [sic]. cralawred (Emphases and you have presented that search
underscoring supplied) warrant to the two (2) children of
However P/Insp. Bulayungan's [Bulauitan], what happened next, if
testimony was belied by that of another any?
member of the search team, PO3
Tagal, who testified that Bulauitan was [PO3 Tagal]: We requested them to
not in the premises when they open the door of their house, Ma'am.
conducted the search:ChanR
oblesVirtualawlibrary [Pros. Israel]: And they accede [sic]?
[Asst. Pros. Maita Grace Deray-Israel
(Pros. Israel)]: And what happened [PO3 Tagal]: Yes, Ma'am.
when you reached the residence of
[Bulauitan] [Pros. Israel]: And after they have
opened the door of their house, what
[PO3 Tagal]: The house helper met happened next?
us together with the two (2) children
of [Bulauitan] and we asked them [PO3 Tagal]: Then we explained to
where is [Bulauitan] and they them what is our subject and we
answered us that [Bulauitan] was requested them to follow us inside
out of his house and he is in the room of [Bulauitan] together
Tuguegarao City, Ma'am. with the two (2) Barangay
26
kagawads, Ma'am. chanrobleslaw
x x x x
x x x (Emphases and underscoring
[Pros. Israel]: And what happened supplied)
when you arrived in the house of While Bulauitan's absence in the
[Bulauitan]? search, per se, did not violate Section
8, Rule 126 of the 2000 Rules on
[PO3 Tagal]: I asked our team leader Criminal Procedure, the search team
6
committed other errors which led to
such violation. For instance, [Atty. Acacio]: And what did you do
Bulauitan's daughter, Maria, was when they told you that even without
effectively precluded from witnessing your father we still have to search the
the search conducted by SPO2 Baccay house?
in Bulauitan's room as PO3 Tagal kept
her in the living room by searching the [Maria]: I let them entered [sic] the
area and asking her a lot of questions. house, sir.
Maria's testimony states:ChanRo
blesVirtualawlibrary x x x x
[Atty. Acacio]: And who were with you
then at the house at that time? [Atty. Acacio]: When these three
policemen were allowed access in the
[Maria]: I was alone, sir. house by you, what did they do?

x x x x [Maria]: When they were at the

receiving room [SPO2 Baccay] read
[Atty. Acacio]: And when [the police the contents of the search warrant and
officers] asked you the whereabouts of asked me and to confirm the room of
your father what did you tell them? my father, sir.

[Maria]: I told them that they were in [Atty. Acacio]: And when [SPO2
Tuguegarao selling, sir. Baccay] did that, what did you do?

[Atty. Acacio]: And then when you told [Maria]: I told them that this is the room
them that your father is in Tuguegarao of my father, sir.
selling, what did the policemen do?
[Atty. Acacio]: And after confirming that
[Maria]: They said that they have a indeed that is the room of your father,
search warrant against my father, sir. what did they do?

x x x x [Maria]: [SPO2 Baccay] and the other

policemen went inside the room
[Atty. Acacio]: When the policemen told while [PO3 Tagal] was left at the
you that there is a search warrant for receiving room, sir.
your father, what did they do?
[Atty. Acacio]: Now, what was [PO3
[Maria]: I was not supposed to let them Tagal] doing when he stayed in
enter the house because my father the sala or receiving room?
was not around but they said that they
will still enter because they have a [Maria]: He was searching our
search warrant for my father otherwise belongings and at the same time
they will force to open the door, sir inquiring from me, sir.
[sic].
x x x x
x x x x
7
[Atty. Acacio]: Now, when you were in [Pros. Nicolas]: You also made
the sala were you able to observe what mention madam witness that two
was happening inside the room of your policemen conducted search inside the
parents? room of your father, is it not? [sic]

[Maria]: No, sir. [Maria]: Yes, sir. 

[Atty. Acacio]: And why can't you see [Pros. Nicolas]: And you also made
what was happening inside the room of mention that you were not able to
your parents? actually see them searching because
the door leading to the room of your
[Maria]: Because the door of the father was half closed, is it not?
room was then half closed,
sir.27 (Emphases and underscoring [Maria]: Yes, sir.
supplied)
[Pros. Nicolas]: And of course you just
Maria's direct testimony was further opted to stay in the sala even you had
bolstered by her consistency during the opportunity to enter the room of 3
cross examination, to wit:ChanR our parents if you chose it, is it not?
oblesVirtualawlibrary [sic]
[Pros. Ronnel B. Nicolas (Pros.
Nicolas)]: In other words, madam [Maria]: Because while [PO3 Tagal]
witness, you confirm that when the was conducting search he had so
policemen conducted a search, the many questions that I need to
search was conducted in the presence answer, sir. [sic]
of these two barangay councilmen?
[Pros. Nicolas]: And definitely madam
[Maria]: Yes they were present but witness nobody prevented you to enter
they were outside the house, sir. the room of your father at the time the
policemen conducted the search inside
x x x the room of your parents?

[Pros. Nicolas]: You also made [Maria]: I was supposed to go with

mention madam witness that when the [SPO2 Baccay] inside the room of
search was being conducted one of the my parents but [PO3 Tagal] talked to
policemen remained in the sala and me so we remained in
conducted search therein, is it not? the sala (receiving room),
28
sir.  (Emphases and underscoring
[Maria]: Yes, sir. supplied)
Worse, the search team even
[Pros. Nicolas]: And in fact you were instructed Maria to contact her
present at the time the policemen father via telephone, which she could
conducting a search in the sala? [sic] only do by leaving their residence and
going to the house of a certain Dr.
[Maria]: Yes, sir. Romeo Bago (Dr. Bago) to use the
telephone therein. It was only after her
8
return to their residence that SPO2 to my mother and she will ask my
Baccay announced that they have father to go home, sir.
allegedly found shabu in Bulauitan's
room:ChanRo [Atty. Acacio]: And after telling that to
blesVirtualawlibrary [PO3 Tagal] what happened next?
[Atty. Acacio]: Now, what did you do
when they told you that you contact [Maria]: [PO3 Tagal] told to [SPO2
your father [through] telephone? Baccay] to enter inside and then we
went inside the house, sir. [sic]
[Maria]: I left our house and went to
the house of [Dr. Bago], sir. [Atty. Acacio]: And when you entered
to the house, what happened next?
x x x x [sic]

[Atty. Acacio]: And what happened [Maria]: When we reached the

when you were able to contact the receiving room, [SPO2 Baccay] said
phone number at the stall of your that they found something, sir.
father?
[Atty. Acacio]: And where was [SPO2
[Maria]: When the call rang the owner Baccay] when he made that
of the phone and then she let me announcement that he found
waited and I was able to talk to my something?
mother, sir [sic].
[Maria]: He was inside the room, sir.
[Atty. Acacio]: And what did you tell
your mother? [Atty. Acacio]: And at that time where
were you?
[Maria]: When I was able to talk to my
mother I told her to let my father to go [Maria]: I was at the receiving room,
home because policemen were there sir.
inside the house, sir [sic].
x x x x
x x x x
[Atty. Acacio]: And did your father
[Atty. Acacio]: And what happened finally arrive?
when you went home?
[Maria]: Yes, sir.
[Maria]: When I was able to reach our
house I saw [PO3 Tagal] and he asked [Atty. Acacio]: Where were you when
from me if I was able to contact my your father arrived?
father, sir.
[Maria]: I was outside of our house,
[Atty. Acacio]: And what did you tell sir.29 (Emphases and underscoring
him? supplied)

[Maria]: I told him that I was able to talk

9
The foregoing statements were
corroborated by Kgd. Soliva's [Kgd. Soliva]: I was surprised when
testimony, which essentially stated they said that they seized shabu inside
that: (a) Bulauitan was not present the house, sir.
when the search was conducted; (b)
Maria wasn't able to witness the x x x x
conduct of such search; and (c) even
he and Kgd. Polonia - the two (2) [Court]: When the PDEA and the
witnesses designated by the barangay police operatives conducted a
chairman - did not witness the search search, you were outside?
as they remained outside Bulauitan's
residence:ChanRobl [Kgd. Soliva]: Yes, your Honor.
esVirtualawlibrary
[Atty. Acacio]: And what happened [Court]: And when the police
when you reached the house of authorities were able to find what they
[Bulauitan]? were looking for you did not see how
they find [sic] it?
[Kgd. Soliva]: They [the police officers
and the PDEA agents] knocked at the [Kgd. Soliva]: No more your Honor
door of the house of [Bulauitan] and because when I saw them they were
the door was opened by the daughter already holding the seized item.
of [Bulauitan], sir.
[Court]: And then the first time you saw
x x x x the seized item, was that when you
enter [sic] the house after they were
[Atty. Acacio]: And what was the already seized, is that right?
response of the daughter of [Bulauitan]
when asked as to his whereabouts? [Kgd. Soliva]: Yes, your Honor.

[Kgd. Soliva]: She answered that they x x x x

were at the public market, sir.
Q: And when you entered the house
[Atty. Acacio]: And after that, what for the first time after you heard that
happened next? something was seized inside the
house, did you see already [Bulauitan]
[Kgd. Soliva]: They sent the daughter inside the house?
to contact her father, sir.
[Kgd. Soliva]: No, your honor.
x x x x
x x x x
[Atty. Acacio]: While the members of
the police and the PDEA were inside [Atty. Acacio]: After you got out of the
the house of [Bulauitan], what house together with the members of
transpired thereafter, if any? the police and the PDEA and you
went all outside of the house, did you
x x x x see [Buluaitan]?
10
 as demanding as this campaign may
x x x x be, it cannot be more so than the
compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the
[Kgd. Soliva]: No, sir.30 (Emphases and protection of liberty of every individual
underscoring supplied) in the realm, including the basest of
criminals. The Constitution covers with
The testimonies given in the case at the mantle of its protection the
bar ultimately prove that: (a) Bulauitan innocent and the guilty alike against
was not in his residence when the any manner of high-handedness from
search was conducted; (b) his the authorities, however praiseworthy
daughter, Maria, was not able to their intentions. Those who are
witness SPO2 Baccay's search of supposed to enforce the law are not
Bulauitan's room as PO3 Tagal kept justified in disregarding the right of the
her in the living room and even individual in the name of order. Order
instructed her to leave the house to is too high a price for the loss of liberty.
contact her parents; and (c) Kgd. As Justice Holmes [once said,] x x x 'I
Soliva and Kgd. Polonia neither think it is less evil that some criminals
witnessed the search as they remained should escape than that the
outside Bulauitan's residence. government should play an ignoble
Accordingly, the search conducted part.' It is simply not allowed in the free
therein by the search team fell way society to violate a law to enforce
below the standard mandated by another, especially if the law violated is
Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised the Constitution itself."32chanrobleslaw
Rules of Criminal Procedure, and thus
deemed unreasonable within the WHEREFORE, the appeal
purview of the exclusionary rule of the is GRANTED. The Decision dated
1987 Constitution. As a consequence, March 26, 2015 and the Resolution
the three (3) plastic sachets containing dated June 17, 2015 of the Court of
an aggregate amount of 0.22 gram Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36117 are
of shabu recovered therefrom are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
inadmissible in evidence for being the Accordingly, petitioner Edmund
proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. Bulauitan y Mauayan
Since the confiscated shabu is the is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
very corpus delicti of the crime
31
charged,  Bulauitan must necessarily SO
be acquitted and exonerated from all ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrar
criminal liability. y

As a final note, it is fitting to mention Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson),

that "[t]he Court strongly supports the Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin,
campaign of the government against and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
drug addiction and commends the
efforts of our law enforcement officers
against those who would inflict this
malediction upon our people,
especially the susceptible youth. But
11
 of Barangay Chairman Jane Busilan,
who in turn, assigned Kagawad (Kgd.)
Jerry Soliva (Kgd. Soliva) and Kgd.
CASE DIGEST: Herald de Polonia (Kgd. Polonia) as
search witnesses. Upon arriving at
Bulauitan's residence, the search team
Mauayan vs. People was met by Bulauitan's two (2) children
and housekeeper, who informed them
G.R. No. 218891, September 19, that Bulauitan was not home.
2016
SPO2 Baccay then proceeded to
Petitioner: Bulauitan's room and there,
discovered three (3) heat-sealed
EDMUND BULAUITAN Y MAUAYAN plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance.
Respondent: Suspecting that the contents are
shabu, the search team showed the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES sachets to the children and
housekeeper and photographed the
FACTS:
same. SPO2 Baccay then gave the
sachets to P/Insp. Bulayungan, who in
The instant case stemmed from an turn, handed them over to PO3 Tagal
Information[6] dated November 7, 2003 who wrapped the confiscated items
filed before the RTC, charging with a piece of paper for transport to
Bulauitan of illegal possession of the Solana PNP Station. When
dangerous drugs, defined and Bulauitan arrived at his residence, the
penalized under Section 11, Article II of search team effected his arrest and
RA 9165,[7 took him to the police station with the
That on or about October 03, 2003, in seized sachets.
the Municipality of Solana, Province of Upon arrival thereat, PO3 Tagal
Cagayan... the said accused, prepared the police blotter and request
[Bulauitan],... The prosecution alleged for laboratory examination, marked the
that on October 3, 2003, the Philippine sachets with his initials, and delivered
National Police of Solana, Gagayan the same to forensic chemist S/Insp.
constituted a team headed by P/Insp. Myrna Madriaga Tulauan of the PNP
Kevin Bulayungan (P/Insp. Crime Laboratory. A qualitative
Bulayungan) as leader, with SPO2 Lito examination revealed that the three (3)
Baccay (SPO2 Baccay) and PO3 plastic sachets contained an aggregate
Elizalde Tagal (PO3 Tagal) as search of 0.22 gram of shabu.
officer and investigator, respectively, to In his defense, Bulauitan denied
implement a search warrant issued by owning the sachets allegedly
Executive Judge Vilma T. Pauig to recovered by the search team in his
search Bulauitan's residence house. He narrated that in the morning
Before going to the target residence, of the fateful day, he went with his wife
the search team first went to the house to Tuguegarao City to tend to their

12
meat shop. He eventually received a Section 2,[18] Article III of the 1987
call from his daughter, Maria Bulauitan Constitution mandates that a search
(Maria), informing him that policemen and seizure must be carried out
are in their house and conducting a through or on the strength of a judicial
search therein, prompting him to warrant predicated upon the existence
immediately go home. of probable cause, absent which such
Finally, Bulauitan averred that search and seizure becomes
Joseph Juan - the person who "unreasonable" within the meaning of
executed the affidavit in support of the the said constitutional provision
application for search warrant — Section 8, Rule 126 of the aforesaid
wanted to get even with him as his wife Rules, states that:SEC. 8. Search of
testified against Juan in a theft case. house, room, or premises to be made
the RTC found Bulauitan guilty in presence of two witnesses. — No
beyond reasonable doubt of the search of a house, room or any other
crime charged,... The RTC found premises shall be made except in the
that Bulauitan constructively presence of the lawful occupant
possessed the sachets containing thereof or any member of his family or
shabu as they were found inside his in the absence of the latter, two
house where he exercised dominion witnesses of sufficient age and
and control. discretion residing in the same locality.
the CA affirmed Bulauitan's Thus, the search of appellant's
conviction. It held that all the residence clearly should have been
elements of illegal possession of witnessed by his son Jack Go who was
dangerous drugs are present, present at the time. The police officers
considering that Bulauitan without were without discretion to substitute
any authority constructively their choice of witnesses for t... those
possessed the seized sachets prescribed by the law.
containing shabu as they were The raiding team's departure from
found inside his house. the procedure mandated by Section
8, Rule 126 of tote Rules of Court,
taken together with the numerous other
ISSUE: irregularities attending the search of
 The issue for the Court's appellant's residence, tainted the
resolution is whether or not search with the vice of
Bulauitan's conviction for illegal unreasonableness, thus compelling
possession of dangerous drugs, this Court to apply the exclusionary
defined and penalized under rule and declare the seized articles
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, inadmissible in evidence
should be upheld. In this case, a judicious perusal of
the records reveals that the
RULING: policemen involved in the search of
Bulauitan's residence — as shown
The appeal is meritorious. in their own testimonies - did not
the Court is of the view that Bulauitan's conduct the search in accordance
conviction must be set aside.
13
with Section 8, Rule 126 of the they remained outside
Revised Rules of Criminal Bulauitan's residence:
Procedure
 While Bulauitan's absence in the The testimonies given in the case at
search, per se, did not violate bar ultimately prove that:
Section 8, Rule 126 of the 2000
(a) Bulauitan was not in his
Rules on Criminal Procedure,
residence when the search was
the search team committed other
conducted;
errors which led to such violation.
(b) his daughter, Maria, was not
 For instance, Bulauitan's
able to witness SPO2 Baccay's
daughter, Maria, was effectively
search of Bulauitan's room as
prevented from witnessing the
PO3 Tagal kept her in the living
search conducted by SPO2
room and even instructed her to
Baccay in Bulauitan's room as
leave the house to contact her
PO3 Tagal kept her in the living
parents; and
room by searching the area and
(c) Kgd. Soliva and Kgd. Polonia
asking her a lot of questions.
neither witnessed the search as
Worse, the search team even they remained outside
instructed Maria to contact her Bulauitan's residence.
father via telephone, which she
Accordingly, the search conducted
could only do by leaving their
therein by the sear... search... team fell
residence and going to the house of
way below the standard mandated by
a certain Dr. Romeo Bago (Dr. Bago)
Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised
to use the telephone therein.
Rules of Criminal Procedure, and
 It was only after her return to thus deemed unreasonable within the
their residence that SPO2 purview of the exclusionary rule of the
Baccay announced that they 1987 Constitution.
have allegedly found shabu in As a consequence, the three (3) plastic
Bulauitan's room sachets containing an aggregate
The foregoing statements were amount of 0.22 gram of shabu
corroborated by Kgd. Soliva's recovered therefrom are inadmissible
testimony, which essentially stated in evidence for being the proverbial
that: fruit of... the poisonous tree.
(a) Bulauitan was not present Since the confiscated shabu is the very
when the search was corpus delicti of the crime charged,
conducted; [31] Bulauitan must necessarily be
(b) Maria wasn't able to witness acquitted and exonerated from all
the conduct of such search; criminal liability.
and WHEREFORE, the appeal is
(c) even he and Kgd. Polonia - the GRANTED.
two (2) witnesses designated
by the barangay chairman -
did not witness the search as Principles:

14
  Section 2,[18] Article III of the
1987 Constitution mandates that
a search and seizure must be
carried out through or on the
strength of a judicial warrant
predicated upon the existence of
probable cause, absent which
such search and seizure
becomes "unreasonable" within
the meaning of the said
constitutional provision
Article III of the 1987 Constitution
provides that evidence obtained from
unreasonable searches and seizures
shall be inadmissible in evidence for
any purpose in any proceeding.
It must be stressed that it is only upon
their absence that their presence may
be replaced by two (2) persons of
sufficient age and discretion residing in
the same locality.

15