In People v. Go, the Supreme Court overturned a conviction for illegal possession of drugs, emphasizing the importance of constitutional rights against unreasonable searches. The Court found that the search of Benny Go’s residence was conducted with numerous violations of procedural rules, leading to the inadmissibility of the seized evidence. This case underscores the principle that law enforcement must strictly adhere to legal standards when conducting searches, or any evidence obtained will be excluded from trial, safeguarding individual liberties.

When Police Mishandle a Search: Can ‘Shabu’ Evidence Stand?

The case began with a search warrant issued against Benny Go for alleged possession of illegal drugs in his Manila residence. During the search, police officers seized a quantity of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride), leading to Go’s conviction in the Regional Trial Court. However, the Supreme Court scrutinized the manner in which the search was conducted, uncovering several critical violations of Go’s constitutional rights. This scrutiny led to a pivotal examination of the boundaries of lawful search and seizure.

The Court emphasized that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, enshrined in Sections 2 and 3, Article III of the Constitution, is paramount. It noted that any encroachment on these rights requires strict adherence to legal procedures. A key principle reiterated was that a search warrant must strictly conform to constitutional and statutory provisions, as highlighted in People v. Veloso:

A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the constitutional and statutory provisions under which it is issued. Otherwise, it is void. The proceedings upon search warrants, it has rightly been held, must be absolutely legal… The warrant will always be construed strictly without, however, going the full length of requiring technical accuracy. No presumptions of regularity are to be invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to justify under it.

Several irregularities in the police conduct were identified. First, the police deliberately “sideswiped” Go’s car to gain entry, bypassing the standard “knock and announce” procedure. Second, Go’s son was immediately handcuffed without any provocation. Third, the police seized numerous items not listed in the search warrant. Further, the inventory of seized items was not detailed, particularly concerning voluminous documents. Lastly, Go was presented with an inventory receipt to sign without being informed of his right not to sign or his right to counsel. These missteps collectively undermined the legality of the search.

The Court also found fault with the “Affidavit of Orderly Search,” which the trial court relied on to validate the search. Since Go was not present during the search, the affidavit could not establish the search’s propriety and validity. More critically, the search violated Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which requires that a search be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant or a family member, or, in their absence, two witnesses from the locality. The police excluded Go’s son from witnessing the search, further invalidating their actions. As articulated in People v. Gesmundo, such non-compliance renders the search unreasonable.

The plain view doctrine, which allows for the seizure of objects in plain sight if an officer is lawfully in a position to view them, was also examined. The Court determined that the seizure of items like passports, bankbooks, and other documents did not meet the criteria for this exception. The police failed to demonstrate how these items were inadvertently discovered and immediately recognizable as evidence of a crime.

Central to the ruling was the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in court. With the primary evidence (shabu) deemed inadmissible, the prosecution’s case collapsed. The Court emphasized that the existence of a dangerous drug is a sine qua non for conviction in drug cases, and without it, the conviction could not stand. The Supreme Court overturned the trial court’s decision and acquitted Go, reinforcing constitutional safeguards against unlawful police conduct. The Court in People v. Aminnudin stated:

The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction… But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals… It is simply not allowed in the free society to violate a law to enforce another, especially if the law violated is the Constitution itself.

Regarding the motion for the return of seized property, the Court generally held that only items described in the search warrant could be seized. There are exceptions, such as items seized during a lawful arrest or in plain view, but these did not apply in Go’s case. The Court ordered the return of items seized unlawfully, with exceptions for counterfeit items and those belonging to third parties. The Court in Tambasen v. People stated:

The evident purpose and intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant – to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made and that abuses may not be committed.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Go underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutional rights. It serves as a reminder that law enforcement’s fight against crime must not come at the expense of individual liberties. The ruling emphasizes that strict compliance with search warrant procedures is not merely a technicality but a fundamental safeguard against potential abuses. By excluding illegally obtained evidence, the Court ensures that constitutional protections remain meaningful in practice, setting a standard for police conduct and reinforcing citizens’ rights against unlawful intrusions.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the search of Benny Go’s residence was conducted legally, and whether the evidence obtained could be admitted in court, considering potential violations of his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
What did the police seize from Benny Go’s residence?	The police seized a plastic bag containing white crystalline substance (shabu), a weighing scale, assorted documents, passports, bank books, checks, a typewriter, a check writer, dry seals, stamp pads, Chinese and Philippine currency, and a Toyota Corolla GLI car.
What violations did the Supreme Court find in the police search?	The Court found several violations, including deliberately damaging Go’s car to gain entry, handcuffing Go’s son without cause, seizing items not listed in the search warrant, failing to provide a detailed inventory, and preventing Go’s son from witnessing the search.
What is the exclusionary rule?	The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial. It is intended to deter law enforcement from violating constitutional rights during searches and seizures.
Why was the “Affidavit of Orderly Search” deemed invalid?	The “Affidavit of Orderly Search” was deemed invalid because Benny Go was not present during the search, and therefore, the affidavit could not establish the propriety and validity of the search of his residence.
What is the plain view doctrine?	The plain view doctrine allows law enforcement officers to seize evidence without a warrant if the object is in plain view, the officer is lawfully in a position to view it, and it is immediately apparent that the item is evidence of a crime or contraband.
What happened to the items seized from Benny Go’s residence?	The Court ordered the return of unlawfully seized items to Benny Go, except for counterfeit items certified by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, which were forfeited in favor of the State. Items belonging to third parties were also not ordered to be returned.
What was the final decision of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision, acquitted Benny Go of the crime charged, and ordered his immediate release from confinement, unless he was lawfully held in custody for another cause.

People v. Go serves as a crucial reminder to law enforcement agencies of the importance of safeguarding individual liberties during the execution of search warrants. The Court’s firm stance against unlawful searches reaffirms the constitutional guarantee protecting citizens from unreasonable intrusions, underscoring that the pursuit of justice must always be balanced with the protection of fundamental rights.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines v. Benny Go, G.R. No. 144639, September 12, 2003