People of the PH v.

Modesto Tee

Facts:

1. The case involves an automatic review of judgment made against Tee who was
convicted for illegal possession of marijuana and sentenced to death
2. Tee contentions
a. Seized evidence was inadmissible by virtue of allegedly general search
warrant.
b. Deprived of right to speedy trial by failure of prosecution to produce
witness Abartique.
i. Failed to appear during 20 hearing dates thereby slowing down
the trial procedure.
ii. Reopening of the case
Issue:

1. W/N the search conducted at the appellant’s residence was valid. YES
2. W/N Tee was deprived of his right to a speedy trial. NO

Ruling: Affirmed decision of TC with modification

1. TC decision
a. 1 million pesos + death
2. SC modification
a. 1 million pesos + reclusion Perpetua

Ratio:

1. The purpose of specifically describing things to be searched and seized

a. Enable officers to identify items to be searched and seized
b. Prevent officers from committing unlawful search and seizure
2. The description “undetermined amount of marijuana” is specific enough
a. Officers could readily identify what to search and seize
b. It was impossible to exact the amount of marijuana beforehand
3. Generally, Speedy Act of 1998 applies (180 days trial period)
a. Courts should do more than a mathematical computation of the # of
postponements
4. Right to speedy trial deemed violated when
a. Proceedings are attended by oppressive delays
b. Unjustified postponements are asked for and secured
c. W/o just cause, a long period of time is allowed to elapse w/o the party
having his case tried.
5. Prosecution exerted efforts in obtaining a warrant to compel the witness to
testify
a. 20 days of delayed hearing not an unreasonable length to constitute
deprivation of Tee’s right to a speedy trial
6. Reopening of case for additional testimony by the prosecutor was in the interest
of substantial justice, hence not abuse of discretion
a. Not prejudicial to the accused it being merely a continuation of
uncompleted testimony