Spouses Veroy v. Layague, G.R. No. L-95630, 210 SCRA 97, June 18, 1992 [FULL CASE DIGEST]

Spouses Veroy v. Layague, G.R. No. L-95630, 210 SCRA 97, June 18, 1992

"Qualified consent"

The permission to enter a house and search for persons and effects may be qualified, and the searching officer may not act in excess of the authority granted to him.

Although the offense of illegal possession of firearms is a malum prohibitum, it does not follow that the subjects may be seized simply because they are prohibited. A search warrant is still necessary in the context of this case.

• The Veroys moved to QC and left their house in Davao City to a caretaker who had keys to the kitchen only. The Veroys had the keys to the interior of the house.
• Capt. Obrero raided the house based on an information that rebel soldiers are allegedly hiding there.
• With the help of caretakers, they were able to enter only up to the yard since the owner was not around and they did not have a search warrant.
• They contacted Mrs. Veroy, and explained that the house was reportedly being used as a hideout and recruitment center of rebel soldiers. Mrs. Veroy then gave permission to search the house with the condition that Major Macasaet, a long-time family friend, must be there during the search.
• Despite the qualified consent, the officers entered various rooms, including the children’s room, and confiscated a .45 caliber gun and other effects, which were the basis of the charge of illegal possession of firearms against them.
• Despite the fact that the warrants for their arrest have not yet been served on them, petitioners voluntarily surrendered themselves to Brig. Gen. Pantaleon Dumlao, PC-CIS Chief, since it was the CIS that initiated the complaint. However, the latter refused to receive them on the ground that his office has not yet received copies of their warrants of arrest.
• The Spouses Veroy assailed the admissibility of the evidence for being obtained in violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Whether the evidence is admissible? NO.

• Petitioners alleged that while Capt. Obrero had permission to enter their house, it was merely for the purpose of ascertaining the presence of the alleged "rebel" soldiers. The permission did not include the authority to conduct a room to room search inside the house. The items taken were, therefore, products of an illegal search, violative of their constitutional rights. As such, they are inadmissible in evidence against them.
• The Court ruled that the case at bar does not fall on the exceptions for a warrantless search. The reason for searching the house is that it was reportedly being used as a hideout and recruitment center for rebel soldiers. While Capt. Obrero was able to enter the yard, he did not enter the house because he did not have a search warrant and the owners were not present. This shows that he himself recognized the need for a search warrant, hence, he did not persist in entering the house but rather contacted the Veroys to seek permission to enter the same. Permission was granted by Mrs. Veroy to enter the house but only to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers.
• Under the circumstances the police officers had time to procure a search warrant but they did not.
• The Court also ruled that although the offense of illegal possession of firearms is a malum prohibitum, it does not follow that the subjects may be seized simply because they are prohibited. A search warrant is still necessary.
• The rule having been violated and no exception being applicable, the articles seized were confiscated illegally and are therefore protected by the exclusionary principle. They cannot be used as evidence against the petitioners in the criminal action against them for illegal possession of firearms.