SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 177148 June 30, 2009 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. RAUL NUÑEZ y REVILLEZA, Appellant.

Turning to the objects which may be confiscated during the search, Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court is pertinent:

SEC. 3. Personal property to be seized. – A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property:

(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

As a rule, only the personal properties described in the search warrant may be seized by the authorities.²³ In the case at bar, Search Warrant No. 42²⁴ specifically authorized the taking of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and paraphernalia(s) only. By the principle of ejusdem generis, where a statute describes things of a particular class or kind accompanied by words of a generic character, the generic word will usually be limited to things of a similar nature with those particularly enumerated, unless there be something in the context of the statement which would repel such inference.²⁵

Thus, we are here constrained to point out an irregularity in the search conducted. Certainly, the lady’s wallet, cash, grinder, camera, component, speakers, electric planer, jigsaw, electric tester, saws, hammer, drill, and bolo were not encompassed by the word paraphernalia as they bear no relation to the use or manufacture of drugs. In seizing the said items then, the police officers exercised their own discretion and determined for themselves which items in appellant’s residence they believed were "proceeds of the crime" or "means of committing the offense." This is, in our view, absolutely impermissible.²⁶

The purpose of the constitutional requirement that the articles to be seized be particularly described in the warrant is to limit the things to be taken to those, and only those particularly described in the search warrant -- to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime.²⁷ Accordingly, the objects taken which were not specified in the search warrant should be restored to appellant.1avvphi1

Lastly, we find the penalty imposed by the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court proper. Under Section 20(3)²⁸ of Rep. Act No. 6425 as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659, possession of 200 grams or more of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) renders the accused liable to suffer the maximum penalty under Section 16 of Rep. Act No. 6425, which is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000.