People vs Dichoso| G.R. No. 101216-18| June 04, 1993| DAVIDE, JR., J.

Summary: A search warrant was issued for violations under the Dangerous Drug Act. The accused claims
that this was a general warrant as it points out to three offenses under the Act, hence, it should have
been three different search warrants. Court ruled that it is a valid search warrant because the offenses
were closely related to each other under the special law and it would be absurd to issue three separate
warrants.

1. Feb 22, 1991: A search warrant was issued on the house of spouses Dichoso, after the Court
finding probable cause that the spouses were keeping, selling and using an undetermined
quantity of shabu and marijuana in said residence
a. Narcotics Command of the 4th Regional Unit stationed at Interior M. Paulino St., San
Pablo City applied for the search warrant
b. House located at Farconville Subd., Phase II, San Pablo City.
2. February 23, 1991: search and seizure ensued inside the nipa house
a. Presented search warrant; asked a team member to call barangay captain
b. Discovered:
i. discovered 200 grams more or less of suspected marijuana wrapped in plastic
inside a cabinet which was standing on the right side upon entering the door of
the nipa house.
ii. six (6) decks of suspected shabu wrapped in an aluminum foil and
iii. the 'Golden Gate' notebook containing the list of suspected customers of
dangerous and regulated drugs together with the corresponding quantity and
prices.
iv. a small quantity of suspected shabu
3. Then, the search was shifted to the main house of the Dichosos. However, the search produced
negative results.
a. Signatures were taken from the accused attesting to the lawful manner the search was
conducted listing thereon the different confiscated items
4. February 26, 1991: the confiscated items were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory, and
tested positive for shabu and marijuana.
a. gave positive results for methamphetamine hydrocloride [sic] (shabu) and
b. the one (1) light green plastic bag containing 103.7 grams of suspected dried marijuana
fruiting tops, crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in a newspaper gave positive results for
marijuana
5. Trial court:
a. Guilty as charged in the information
b. Violating Section 15, Article III and Section 4, Article II, respectively, of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425)
6. Claims:
a. The search warrant was a general warrant as it did not specify the particular offense
which he violated under the said law; provided just 1 search warrant for 3 different
offenses:
i. (a) illegal possession of marijuana dried leaves,
ii. (b) illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and
 iii. (c) illegal possession of opium pipe and other paraphernalia for prohibited drug
b. Frame-up
c. Inadmissible in evidence since he signed the Pagpapatunay while under police custody
without having been accorded his Constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel

WON it is a general warrant? (NO)

1. Contents of search warrant:

a. “..that there is probable cause to believe that the above-named defendants are illegally
in possession of undetermined quantity/amount of dried marijuana leaves and
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) and sets of paraphernalias (sic) stored inside
the nipa hut within the compound of their residence at Farconville Sub., Phase II, San
Pablo City which should be seized and brought to the undersigned..”
2. His argument that there should have been three (3) separate search warrants, one for illegal
possession of shabu, the second for illegal possession of marijuana and the third for illegal
possession of paraphernalia is pedantic.
3. Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals specifically with dangerous drugs which
are subsumed into "prohibited" and "regulated" drugs and defines and penalizes categories of
offenses which are closely related or which belong to the same class or species.
a. Accordingly, one (1) search warrant may thus be validly issued for the said violations of
the Dangerous Drugs Act.
4. This case is different from Stonehill vs Diokno.
a. In the case cited, there was a bare reference to the laws in general, without any
specification of the particular sections thereof that were alleged to have been violated
out of the hundred of prohibitions contained in such codifications.
b. There is no similar ambiguity in the instant case.
5. Hence, since the search warrant is valid, the articles seized by virtue of its execution may be
admitted in evidence.