357 Phil. 377
MARTINEZ, J.:
"1. On June 5, 1995, in my official capacity as Attorney V and Chief of LICD, I received reports from SPO4 Manuel P. Cabiles of the Regional Intelligence Group IV, Intelligence Command of the PNP that certain -The application, however, ended with the statement that the warrant is to search the premises of another person at a different address:
1.a. Aiden Lanuza of 516 San Jose de la Montana Street, Mabolo, Cebu City sold to said Officer Cabiles various drug products amounting to Seven Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Two Pesos (P 7,232.00) on May 29, 1995;
1.b. Said Aiden Lanuza or her address at 516 San Jose de la Montana Street, Mabolo, Cebu City has no license to operate, distribute, sell or transfer drug products from the BFAD;
1.c. Distribution, sale or offer for sale or transfer of drug products without license to operate from BFAD is in violation of Art. 40 (k) of RA 7394 (or ‘the Consumer Act’).
"2. In support of the report, the subscribed affidavit of Mr. Cabiles, his report and the various drug products sold and purchased contained in a (sic) plastic bags marked ‘Lanuza Bag 1 of 1’ and ‘Lanuza Bag 2 of 2’ were enclosed; and the same are likewise submitted herewith.
xxx xxx xxx."[1] (Emphasis supplied)
"3. This is executed to support affiant’s application for a search warrant on the premises of Belen Cabanero at New Frontier Village, Talisay Cebu."[2] (Emphasis supplied)In support of the application, the affidavit of SPO4 Manuel P. Cabiles, a member of the Regional Intelligence Group IV of the PNP Intelligence Command, Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna, was attached thereto, wherein he declared that:
"1. Upon the request for assistance by BFAD, he conducted surveillance for persons distributing, selling or transferring drug products without license to operate from BFAD.The BFAD also submitted with the application a copy of the sketch[4] of the location of Aiden Lanuza’s residence at her stated address.
"2. On May 29, 1995, a certain Aiden Lanuza of 516 San Jose de la Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City sold to him various drug products amounting to P7,232.00 and
"3. Upon further verification in the BFAD registry of licensed persons or premises, the said person and place have in fact no license to operate.
"4. Earlier than May 29, 1995, affiant saw a delivery of drug products from the residence of Mrs. Lanuza in 516 San Jose de la Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City to another person.
"5. Accompanying this affidavit are the various products sold to/and purchased by the affiant contained in two (2) plastic bags marked ‘Lanuza Bag 1 of 1’ and ‘Lanuza Bag 2 of 2.’
"This is executed in support of the affiant’s report to BFAD and for whatever legitimate purpose this may serve." [3] (Emphasis supplied)
On June 28, 1995, the search warrant was served at private respondent Lanuza’s residence at the indicated address by a composite team of policemen from the PNP 7th Criminal Investigation Command, Camp Sotero Cabahug, Cebu City."REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 83 - QUEZON CITY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,
- versus - SEARCH WARRANT NO. 958 (95)
AIDEN LANUZA,
Defendant.
X---------------------------XSEARCH WARRANT
"It appears to the satisfaction of this Court, after examining under oath Atty. Lorna Frances F. Cabanlas, Chief of the Legal Information and Compliance Division (LICD) of the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) and her witness, Manuel P. Cabiles, member of the Intelligence Group IV, Intelligence Command, PNP, Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of Article 40(k) in relation to Article 41 of Republic Act No. 7394 (Consumer Act) has been committed or about to be committed and there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that Ms. Aiden Lanuza of 516 San Jose dela Montana Street, Cebu City has in her possession and control at said address the following described properties:
medicines and drugs of undetermined quantity among which are Bricanyl Tablet, Bisolvon Tablet, Buscopan Tablet, Buscopan Ampoule, Mucosolvan Ampoule, Persantin Tablet, Tegretol Tablet, PZA-Ciba Tablet, Voltaren Tablet, Zantac Ampoule, Ventolin Tablet, Ventolin Inhaler, Dermovate Cream, Fortum Vial, Zinacef Vial, Feldene 1M Ampoule, Norvasoc Tablet, Bactrim Forte Tablet, Rochephin Vial, Tilcotil Tablet, Librax Tablet, Methergin Tablet and Tagamet Tablet
which she is selling, distributing and transferring without the necessary license from the Department of Health.
"You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at any time of the DAY or NIGHT of the premises above-described and forthwith seize and take possession of the undetermined amount of drugs and medicines subject of the offense and to bring the same to this Court to be dealt with as the law directs.
"You are further directed to submit a return of this Search Warrant within ten (10) days from today.
"This Search Warrant is valid within a period of ten (10) days from the date of issue.
"GIVEN UNDER THE HAND AND SEAL of this Court this 27th day of June 1995 at Quezon City.
(Sgd.)ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA
Second Vice Executive Judge"[5]
(Emphasis supplied)
a) In holding that the defect appearing in BFAD's application for a search warrant is so "grave" in nature as to warrant quashal of the search warrant issued thereunder, considering that such variance is actually a harmless clerical error.We granted the petitioner’s application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order in a resolution[17] dated June 26, 1996 and restrained the implementation of the assailed orders, effective immediately and until further orders from this Court.
b) In holding that Atty. Cabanlas was not authorized by the BFAD to apply for a search warrant concerning the unlicensed distribution of drugs, considering that the grant of BFAD authorization upon her to investigate fake, misbranded, adulterated or unregistered drugs necessarily contemplates the authority to investigate the unlicensed activities above noted.
c) In holding that applicant BFAD had failed to discharge the burden of proving probable cause for issuance of a search warrant, by failing to present documentary proof indicating that private respondent had no license to sell or distribute drug products, considering that under the authority of Carillo v. People (229 SCRA 386) the BFAD only had the burden of proving the negative ingredient of the offense charged on the basis of the best evidence procurable under the circumstances.
d) In holding that the place sought to be searched had not been described with sufficient particularity in SW No. 958 (95), considering that Aiden Lanuza's residence at Lot No. 41, 516 San Jose de la Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City was not so conspicuously or notoriously represented to the public as such by her as to contradict the investigating and serving officers' perception of the outward appearance of her dwelling, which led them to believe that the more general address of 516 San Jose de la Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City referred to her dwelling.
e) In ordering the return of the things seized, the possession of which is prohibited.[16]
"SEC. 2. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OF WHATEVER NATURE AND FOR ANY PURPOSE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE, AND NO SEARCH WARRANT OR WARRANT OF ARREST SHALL ISSUE EXCEPT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BE DETERMINED PERSONALLY BY THE JUDGE AFTER EXAMINATION UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF THE COMPLAINANT AND THE WITNESSES HE MAY PRODUCE, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED." (Emphasis supplied)In quashing the subject search warrant, it is the finding of the respondent Judge that the application for its issuance suffered from a "grave" defect, "which escaped (her) attention," considering that it was applied to search the premises of one Belen Cabanero at New Frontier Village, Talisay, Cebu, but was issued to search the residence of herein private respondent Aiden Lanuza at 516 San Jose de la Montana St., Cebu City.[20]
The title of the questioned application, which reads:and the allegations contained therein, pertinent portions of which we quote:
"PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,
- versus - SEARCH WARRANT NO. 958 (95)
AIDEN LANUZA, For: Violation of Article
516 San Jose de la 40 (k) in relation to
Montana Street, Mabolo, Article 41 of Republic
Cebu City, Act No. 7394 (or the
Defendant. Consumer Act).
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x"[21] (Emphasis supplied)
". On June 5, 1995, in my official capacity as Attorney V and Chief of LICD, I received reports from SPO4 Manuel P. Cabiles of the Regional Intelligence Group IV, Intelligence Command of the PNP that certain -unmistakably reveal that the said application was specifically intended against private respondent Aiden Lanuza of 516 San Jose de la Montana Street, Mabolo, Cebu City. She has been the only one identified in the application, as well as in the aforequoted affidavit of SPO4 Manuel Cabiles upon which the application was based, as having allegedly sold to said SPO4 Cabiles various drugs amounting to P7,232.00 on May 29, 1995, without any license to do so, in alleged violation of Article 40 (k) of R.A. 7394. It is noteworthy that, as stated in the above-quoted paragraph 2 of the application, the plastic bags which contained the seized drugs and which were submitted together with the application, were marked as "Lanuza Bag 1 of 1" and "Lanuza Bag 2 of 2." These markings with the name "Lanuza" obviously refer to no other than the herein private respondent. And when the respondent Judge issued the search warrant, it was directed solely against private respondent Aiden Lanuza at her address: 516 San Jose de la Montana Street, Mabolo, Cebu City.
1.a. Aiden Lanuza of 516 San Jose de la Montana Street, Mabolo, Cebu City sold to said Officer Cabiles various drug products amounting to Seven Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Two Pesos (P 7,232.00) on May 29, 1995;
1.b. Said Aiden Lanuza or her address at 516 San Jose de la Montana Street, Mabolo, Cebu City has no license to operate, distribute, sell or transfer drug products from the BFAD;
x x x x x x x x x
"2. In support of the report, the subscribed affidavit of Mr. Cabiles, his report and the various drug products sold and purchased contained in a (sic) plastic bags marked ‘Lanuza Bag 1 of 1’ and ‘Lanuza Bag 2 of 2’ were enclosed; and the same are likewise submitted herewith.
x x x x x x x x x." [22] (Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing discussion, it is obvious that the name and address of one Belen Cabanero were erroneously copied in paragraph 3 of the application in question. Such defect, as intimated earlier, is not of such a gravity as to call for the invalidation of the search warrant.
"(COURT) Q. And who is your respondent? A. Mrs. Aiden Lanuza and the other one is Belen Cabanero. Q. Where are they situated? A. Mrs. Lanuza is situated in No. 516 San Jose de la Montana Street, Mabolo, Cebu City. Q. About the other? A. New Frontier Village, Talisay, Cebu. Q. Do you have any specific address at New Frontier Village? A. It was reported by Mr. Manuel Cabiles. Q. Will he be testifying? A. Yes Ma'am. Your Honor, this is the vicinity of the New Frontier Village, Cebu (witness presenting a sketch) (sic) Q. How about this San Jose de la Montana. This is just in Cebu City? A. At 516 San Jose de la Montana Street, Mabolo, Cebu City."[23]
"It is deference to one’s personality that lies at the core of this right, but it could be also looked upon as a recognition of a constitutionally protected area, primarily one’s home but not necessarily thereto confined (Cf. Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 [1966]). What is sought to be guarded is a man’s prerogative to choose who is allowed entry to his residence. In that haven of refuge, his individuality can assert itself not only in the choice of who shall be welcome but likewise in the kind of objects he wants around him. There the state, however powerful, does not as such have access except under the circumstances above noted, for in the traditional formulation, his house, however humble, is his castle. Thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government, which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his life (Cf. Schmerber v. California, 384 US 757, Brennam, J. and Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616, 630). In the same vein, Landynski in his authoritative work, Search and Seizure and the Supreme Court (1966), could fitly characterize this constitutional right as the embodiment of a spiritual concept: the belief that to value the privacy of home and person and to afford its constitutional protection against the long reach of government is no less than to value human dignity, and that his privacy must not be disturbed except in case of overriding social need, and then only under stringent procedural safeguards (Ibid, p. 47)." (Emphasis supplied)In the case at bar, the best evidence procurable under the circumstances to prove that private respondent Aiden Lanuza had no license to sell drugs is the certification to that effect from the Department of Health. SPO4 Manuel could have easily procured such certification when he went to the BFAD to verify from the registry of licensed persons or entity. No justifiable reason was introduced why such certification could not be secured. Mere allegation as to the non-existence of a license by private respondent is not sufficient to establish probable cause for a search warrant. The presumption of regularity cannot be invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to justify it.[26] We apply by analogy our ruling in 20th Century Fox Film Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et. al.:[27]
"The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those who have in their possession the pirated films. The petitioner’s argument to the effect that the presentation of the master tapes at the time of application may not be necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature and not determinative of whether or not a probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants is not meritorious. The court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master tapes that it owns.Secondly, the place sought to be searched had not been described with sufficient particularity in the questioned search warrant, considering that private respondent Aiden Lanuza's residence is actually located at Lot No. 41, 516 San Jose de la Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City, while the drugs sought to be seized were found in a warehouse at Lot No. 38 within the same compound. The said warehouse is owned by a different person. Again, the respondent Judge is correct on this point.
"The application for search warrants was directed against video tape outlets which allegedly were engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films belonging to the petitioner pursuant to P.D. 49.
"The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the copyrighted work. Hence, the applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant." (Emphasis supplied)
"x x x. The verified motion to quash and reply also show that the search at the house of defendant-movant yielded negative result and the confiscated articles were taken from another place which is the warehouse of Folk Arts Import and Export Company owned by another person. In the return of the search warrant, it is stated that Search Warrant No. 958 (95) was served at the premises of 516 San Jose dela Montana St., Cebu City and that during the search, drug products were found and seized therefrom which were duly receipted. Accompanying said return is the Joint Affidavit of two (2) members of the searching team, namely: SPO2 Froctuoso Bete and SPO2 Markbilly Capalingan, both of the 7th Criminal Investigation Command, PNP, with station at Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gerardo Avenue, Cebu City which also mentioned only the address as 516 San Jose dela Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City and the confiscation of 52 cartoons(sic) of assorted medicines purportedly from the possession and control of defendant-movant. However, as indicated in the sketch attached to the application for search warrant, said Folk Arts Import and Export Company is owned by one David Po, which is a concrete proof that the searching team exceeded their authority by conducting a search not only in the residence of defendant-movant Lanuza but also in another place which the applicant itself has identified as belonging to another person, David Po. The foregoing are strong reasons to support the conclusion that there has been an unreasonable search and seizure which would warrant the quashal of the search warrant."[30]The respondent Judge acted correctly in granting the motion to quash the search warrant.