Court clears man of drug possession raps

Regional Trial Court executive judge Fortunato de Gracia cleared a man of drug possession charge then lectured the policemen on effective ways of serving a search warrant against a suspect otherwise the case will just be dismissed.

De Gracia, who was a police officer before he joined the judiciary, said that even if the policemen properly secured a search warrant from the court that empowers them to search a house or a place for a particular contraband, they are still required to inform the concerned person before they start the search.

Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedures also provides that the police should also allow the house owners or the occupants to witness the conduct of the search, said the judge.

De Gracia noted that some policemen fail to follow the proper procedures in the search and these lapses are sometimes the cause of the dismissal of the cases filed against suspected drug personalities.

Last Friday, De Gracia dismissed the drug possession charge filed against Niño Tañajura because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the arresting policemen failed to follow procedures on serving the warrant against the suspect.

Tañajura’s house on C. Padilla Street in barangay San Nicolas-Proper was raided and searched by the members of the Cebu City Police Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Bureau on November 12, 2003 for being a drug den. Allegedly found from the search were 51 grams of shabu.

The raiding team had a search warrant, issued by RTC Branch 10 Judge Soliver Peras, but Tañajura accused the policemen of planting the evidence against him because he and other civilians were prevented from witnessing the search.

The accused also presented some witnesses to support his claim that the policemen just entered his house, without informing them, by climbing over the walls of neighboring houses, and entering his house through the terrace.

De Gracia said that the suspect should first be informed of the pupose of the raid. The requirement for a notice is designed to protect the liberty of the person or property to be searched, and to ensure the safety and well being of the officers serving the warrant.

If a person, who is the subject of the raid, is not informed of the raid by the raiders, the person could tag the unannounced entry to the property as an unlawful aggression, for which he or she could resist. As such, the resistance may cause injury or death of any member of the raiding team that would not even hold the suspect liable.

De Gracia quoted a United States Supreme Court ruling that clearly stated “generally, officers implementing a search warrant must announce their presence, identify themselves to the persons who rightfully have possession of the premises to be searched and to show the copy of the search warrant.”

He said that the requirement is not only a mere procedural formality, but is of the essence of the substantial provision which safeguard individual liberty. — Rene U. Borromeo/RAE