3.5 People v.

Tiu Won Chua 405 scra 280

Facts: Accused Tiu Won Chua a.k.a. Timothy Tiu and Qui Yaling y Chua a.k.a. Sun Tee Sy y Chua were charged and
convicted by the lower court or violation o Section !"# Article $$$ o the dangerous drug act o !%&'# or their illegal
(ossession o a regulated drug# shabu. They a((ealed the decision o the lower court )uestioning the legality o the search
warrant and the search and arrest conducted (ursuant thereto# and the correctness o the *udgment o conviction im(osed
by the +TC. Accused,a((ellants contend that the deect in the issuance o the search warrant# or it was issued in the name
o timothy tui -not Tiu won chua. and did not include a((ellant )ui yaling# would make the search conducted and
conse)uently# the arrest# illegal. And that the evidence (resented cannot be served as basis or their conviction being ruits
o an illegal search.
Issues:
!. Whether or not there was a valid search warrant.
'. Whether or not the court correctly im(osed *udgment o conviction to the accused.
Ruling:
!. There are only our re)uisites or a valid warrant# i.e#/ -!. it must be issued u(on 0(robable cause01 -'. (robable
cause must be determined (ersonally by the *udge1 -3. such *udge must e2amine under oath or airmation the
com(lainant and the witnesses he may (roduce1 and -3. the warrant must (articularly describe the (lace to be
searched and the (ersons or things to be sei4ed. A mistake in the name o the (erson to be searched does not
invalidate the warrant# es(ecially since in this case# the authorities had (ersonal knowledge o the drug,related
activities o the accused by virtue o the surveillance and test,buy o(erations o the said authorities. $n act# a
05ohn 6oe0 warrant satisies the re)uirements so long as it contains a descri(tio (ersonae such as will enable the
oicer to identiy the accused. 7oreover# a mistake in the identiication o the owner o the (lace does not
invalidate the warrant (rovided the (lace to be searched is (ro(erly described. 8owever# the court airms the
illegality o the search conducted on the car or it was not (art o the descri(tion o the (lace to be searched
mentioned in the warrant.
'. $n a (rosecution or illegal (ossession o a dangerous drug# it must be shown that -!. a((ellants were in
(ossession o an item or an ob*ect identiied to be a (rohibited or regulated drug# -'. such (ossession is not
authori4ed by law# and -3. the a((ellants were reely and consciously aware o being in (ossession o the drug.
Since the crime is malum (rohibitum# hence# lack o criminal intent or good aith does not e2em(t a((ellants
rom criminal liability. 7ere (ossession o a regulated drug without legal authority is (unishable under the
6angerous 6rugs Act. $n the case at bar# the (rosecution suiciently (roved that the (acks o shabu were ound
inside a room in the unit sub*ect o the search warrant# more (articularly inside the man9s handbag and ladies9
handbag owned res(ectively by the accused.
As to the (enalties im(osed# the court did not sustain the trial court9s decision attributing to both a((ellants the
illegal (ossession o the same amount o shabu. Since no cons(iracy was (roven# the amount o the shabu rom
each accused was made the basis o the (enalty im(osed.
Thus# since '33.5 grams o shabu were ound inside the man9s handbag# deemed to be owned by Tiu Won# he is guilty o
violating Section !"# Article $$$ o +.A. :o. "3'5# while Qui Yaling# whose handbag contained only ';.3"&3 grams o shabu
is guilty o violating Section '; thereo. Section !"# in connection with Section '; -!
st
(aragra(h.# (rovides the (enalty o
reclusion (er(etua to death and a ine ranging rom ive hundred thousand (esos to ten million (esos where the amount o
shabu involved is ';; grams or more. Where the amount is less than ';; grams# Section '; (unishes the oender with the
(enalty ranging rom (rision correccional to reclusion (er(etua.