People v. Modesto Tee Digest

People  of  the  Philippines  v.  Modesto  Tee     FACTS:   Modesto  Tee  is  a  businessman  in  Baguio  City.  He  requested  Danilo  Abratique,  a  taxi  driver,  to  help  him  transport   alleged   cigarettes.   Abratique   then   took   Tee   to   a   building   in   Bakakeng,   to   store   the   cigarettes.   When   the   cigarettes   turned  out  to  be  marijuana,  the  owner  of  the  building  requested  that  they  leave.       Subsequently,  Abratique  drove  Tee  to  La  Trinidad  “to  buy  strawberries.”  However,  they  went  to  Sablan  and  loaded   marijuana  into  the  taxi.  They  went  to  the  house  of  Abreau,  Abratique’s  relative  in  Green  Valley.  Tee  rented  a  room   and  stored  marijuana  there.  Abreau  was  bothered  with  the  marijuana  being  in  her  house,  so  she  confided  in  her   daughter.  Her  daughter  then  informed  NBI  Agent  Fianza.     Acting  on  this  information,  the  NBI  and  the  PNP  did  a  stakeout  at  Abreau’s  place,  since  Tee  was  supposed  to  be   coming.  However,  he  did  not.  Fearing  that  the  operation  would  be  botched,  the  authorities  asked  Abreau  if  they   could  enter  Tee’s  room.  Abreau  consented.  Thirteen  (13)  sacks  of  marijuana  (336.96  kg)  were  in  the  room.     NBI   Agent   Lising   applied   for   a   search   warrant   before   Judge   Reyes;   Abratique   was   the   witness.   After   questioning   Abratique,   Judge   Reyes   issued   the   warrant.   It   was   served   to   Mr.   Tee   at   home,   in   Green   Valley.   Twenty-­‐six   (26)   boxes  of  marijuana  were  found  (591.81  kg).  A  lab  test  confirmed  that  the  items  were  marijuana.     Two   separate   charges   were   filed   against   Tee.   He   filed   a   motion   to   quash   the   search   warrant,   on   the   ground   that   it   was  too  general.  He  pointed  out  that  the  warrant  only  stated  “undetermined  amount  of  marijuana.”  The  motion   was  denied.  During  arraignment,  he  refused  to  plead.  A  plea  of  not  guilty  was  entered  by  the  court  on  his  behalf.     Regarding  the  first—involving  the  591.81  kg  of  drugs—he  was  convicted  and  sentenced  to  death.  He  was  acquitted   on  the  second.  The  RTC  reasoned  that  the  336.96  kg  of  marijuana  were  seized  illegally,  hence  cannot  be  admitted   as  evidence.       ISSUE:   Whether  or  not  the  search  warrant  is  valid     RULING:   The  warrant  is  valid.     The   purpose   of   specifically   describing   things   to   be   searched   and   seized   is   to   enable   the   searching   officers   to   identify   the   items   to   be   searched   and   seized.   This   prevents   them   from   committing   unlawful   search   and   seizure.   Technical  precision  is  not  required.     The   description   “undetermined   amount   of   marijuana”   is   specific   enough.   The   officers   could   readily   identify   the   items  to  be  searched  and  seized.  Further,  it  was  impossible  to  know  the  exact  amount  of  marijuana  beforehand.