MARCO CONCEPTUAL

The police received an information that a van with plate No. UPN 595 which was being used in the transport of shabu was seen at the vicinity of barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City. Three teams were dispatched to the area, one of which spotted the van, which hit a 7 year old boy. The van stopped and the owner got of to bring the boy to a hospital. A police officer approached the van to apprehend the driver for reckless imprudence. As he stood near the van, he saw through the lightly tinted window several sacks.

One sack was open and he noticed white plastic bags containing crystalline substance, which turned out to be shabu. Is the shabu admissible in evidence?

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU M TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU University College of Law

Held: Yes. Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant. The plain view doctrine applies when (a) the law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position form which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) the illegality of the object is immediately apparent. Clearly, the prohibited substance was in plain view of the police officer who was in a position to be near the van at the time. The substance is therefore not the product of an illegal search.

PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO

The policemen had a search warrant for the seizure of shabu and their paraphernalia.

When the police entered the house, they found a gun and a cup filled with bullets on top of the television set.

ISSUE: Are these admissible in court?

Held: Basing on the Musa case, they should be held as admissible in court. But according to the court, they are not. The authority given by the court was only to obtain the shabu and paraphernalia. They had no authority to get the firearms and ammunitions. The warrant specifically defines the object to be searched. It would seem that there should be some modification in the requisites of search in plain view.

NOTE: The possession of parts of a gun will also hold a person liable under the crime of illegal possession of firearms.

DEL ROSARIO V. PEOPLE

The judge issued a search warrant authorizing the search and seizure of a .45 caliber pistol at the residence of accused. In the course of the search, during which they found the gun which turned out to be licensed, the policemen also seized a .22 caliber revolver, not described in the warrant, from his daughter’s bedroom. Is the .22 caliber revolver admissible in evidence?

Held: No. Seizure is limited to those items particularly described in the warrant . In this case, the firearm was not found inadvertently and in plain view. It was found as a result of a meticulous search in the kitchen. This firearm was not mentioned in the search warrant. Hence, the seizure was illegal. True that as an exception, the police may seize without a warrant illegally possessed firearm or any contraband inadvertently found in plain view. However, the seizure in plain view applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object, which is not the case here.

PEOPLE V. SALANGUIT

The Search Warrant issued by the judge ordered the seizure of “UNDETERMINED QUANTITY OF SHABU AND DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.” During the search, however, in addition to the shabu, the police found and seized 2 bricks of dried marijuana leaves weighing 1,254 grams. Is the marijuana admissible in evidence?

Held: No. While police officers with a search warrant may seize contraband items in plain view even if not described in the warrant, the “plain view doctrine” cannot apply here. The doctrine requires (1) prior justification for the intrusion; (2) inadvertent discovery; and (3) immediate apparent illegality. Because the police knew that the shabu was in the cabinet, it is reasonable to assume that they found it first. Once the valid portion of the warrant has been execute, the

“plain view” doctrine can no longer serve as valid basis for admitting the other items subsequently found. In addition, the marijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint. Its illegality, therefore, was not immediately apparent to justify its seizure.

PEOPLE V. DORIA,

In the course of the buy bust operation, the police handed P1,600.00 to Doria who proceeded to get the marijuana. When he returned an hour later with the marijuana, the police arrested him. He told the police that he left the buy bust money to Neneth and the police went to the latter’s house. Standing by the door, they saw a carton box under the dining table.

The box was partially open and revealed something wrapped in plastic. As the plastic looked similar to the one they seized from Doria, the police opened it and found marijuana. Was the marijuana seized in plain view?

Held: No. For the plain view doctrine to apply, the following requisites must concur: 1) the officer has prior justification for the intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; 2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view must be inadvertent; and 3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item in contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. In this case, it was not immediately apparent to the police that the box contained marijuana. The plastic wrapper was not colorless and transparent as to manifest its contents to the viewer. Each of ten bricks of marijuana in the box was individually wrapped in old newspapers and place inside plastic bags --- white, pink or blue in color. The seizure of the marijuana therefore violated the Constitution.

PEOPLE V. ELAMPARO

After the buy bust the police arrest Spencer, who was able to free himself and run

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU M TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU University College of Law

inside the house of appellant. The police pursued Spence inside the house and found appellant repacking 5 bricks of marijuana on top of a table.

They arrested appellant and confiscated the marijuana. Is the marijuana admissible in evidence?

Held: Yes. The case falls under the plain view doctrine. Under the said doctrine, the following requisites must concur; 1) the law enforcer has a prior justification for the intrusion; 2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent, and 3) the illegality of the object is immediately apparent. In this case, the policemen were justified in running after Spencer and entering the house without a search warrant for they were not in the heels of a fleeing criminal. They also caught appellant in flagrante delicto repacking the marijuana bricks which were in full view on top of the table.

PEOPLE V. VALDEZ

At about 10:15 o’clock in the morning, the police were informed of the presence of a marijuana plantation. At 5:00 o’clock in the morning the following day, a police team, accompanied by the informer, left for the site were the marijuana plants were grown. After a 3-hour uphill trek from the nearest barangay road, they arrived at the place and found accused in his nipa hut. They looked around the unfenced

“kaingin” and saw 7 five-foot high marijuana plants planted approximately 25 meters from his hut. Are the marijuana plants admissible in evidence?

Held: No. Considering that the informant had revealed the name of accused as well as the place were the marijuana was planted and the police had at least one day to obtain a search warrant, they had no reason not to obtain one.

The plain view doctrine cannot apply. The seizure of evidence in plain view applies where the police inadvertently came across the object. In this case, the police team was dispatch precisely to search the prohibited flora. It must also be noted that they first had to “look around the area”

before they could spot the illegal plants.

Patently, the seized marijuana plants were not

“immediately apparent.” Thus, the plain view doctrine cannot be made to apply.

PEOPLE V. PASUDAG

While a policeman was urinating at a fence behind a bamboo school, he saw a garden of about 70 square meters with corn and camote tops. Concealed by the corn, however, were marijuana plants. The policeman asked from a storekeeper nearby as to who owned the garden and he was told that it was accused. He reported to the Chief of Police who dispatched a team of policemen an hour later. Going straight to the house of accused, they asked him to bring the team to the backyard garden which was just 5

meters away. The police team uprooted the 7 fully grown marijuana plants. Was the search and seizure valid?

Held: No. The marijuana plants were seized in violation of the rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The policeman had ample time to secure a warrant. He knew who owned the garden. He was acquainted with the marijuana plants and immediately recognized them. Time was not of the essence to uproot and confiscate the plants. They were three months old and there was no sufficient reason to believe that they would be uprooted on that same day.

PEOPLE VS. MUSA

This was a buy-bust operation.

Information was obtained that a certain Musa was selling marijuana. A test-buy was conducted and true enough marijuana was brought the following day. A buy-bust was arranged. Sgt Ani posed as a prospective buyer. After Musa gave him marijuana and after getting the marked P20.00 bill, Musa was arrested. In the living room, they could not find the P20.00 bill. Hence, they proceeded to the other parts of the house and found in the kitchen a plastic bag which when opened contained dried marijuana leaves.

Held: No valid search. Although it was a valid arrest, the subsequent search in the kitchen was not. It cannot be considered as a surrounding within his immediate control. The prosecution’s contention that it was evidence in plain view is untenable because the evidence of illegality is not apparent. They have to open the plastic bag to know what was contained therein. The marijuana there in the plastic bag is inadmissible in evidence.

PEOPLE VS. MUSA

(as discussed by Ms. Jumao-as under plain view)

- (People vs. Musa, supra)

Held: The court ruled that this was not a search in plain view. The police did not come across the evidences inadvertently. There was prior justification for the intrusion but it is limited only within the immediate vicinity. Also, the illegality was not readily apparent since it was inside a plastic bag.

STOP AND FRISK:

POSADAS VS. CA

Posadas was carrying a buri bag. When he was stopped by the police, he tried to run away but he failed to escape. The police found guns and ammunitions inside his bag. The police reasoned that he was acting suspiciously and that he was acting suspiciously and that is why they searched him.

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU M TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU University College of Law

Held: The court ruled that the search was valid.

There was probable cause(acting suspiciously) for the police to conduct the search. The suspect was looking side-to-side and he tried to flee when the police stopped him.

PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE

The police received a phone call that there were three suspiciously looking men at a street corner in Tondo. The police found 2 men looking side-to-side, and one had his hand on his abdomen. When the police approached them, the two tried to flee. The police caught up with them and they were searched. The police found a .38 caliber pistol with 6 live ammunitions.

Held: The court ruled that the firearm was not admissible as evidence. The search was not valid since there was no probable cause. When the court tried to look at the facts how the police arrived to the conclusion that the suspects were acting suspiciously, they found it insufficient.

Looking side-to-side or holding one’s abdomen does not necessarily constitute acting suspiciously.

As to the illegal possession of firearm, the court ruled that the police had no personal knowledge that the suspect was actually carrying a gun at that time. Subsequent discovery of the firearm will not cure the illegality of the search.

MANALILI VS. CA

At 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, policemen form Caloocan were conducting a surveillance in response to a report that drug addicts were roaming in front of Caloocan Cemetery. They chanced upon a male person observed to have reddish eyes and walking in a swaying manner as though he was high on drugs.

When he tried to avoid the policemen, they approached him and introduced themselves.

They asked him what he was holding but he tried to resist. He later showed the wallet he as holding and the police found crushed marijuana residue inside.

Held: There was a valid stop-and-frisk search.

“Where a police officer observes an unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in the light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identified himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stage of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or other’s safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.” [Terry b.

Ohio]. In this case, the policemen, based on the

circumstances, had sufficient reason to stop accused and investigate if he was high on drugs.

PEOPLE V. ENCINADA

At 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of May 20, 1992, the police received an intelligence report that appellant was arriving in Surigao City aboard M/V Sweet Pearly in the morning of May 21. The following day, as accused was disembarking, the police watched him. He walked briskly down the gangplank carrying 2 plastic baby chairs. He took a motorella which was stopped by the police who then searched the chairs where they found 88 grams of marijuana leaves.

Held: the search was illegal. Accused was not committing a crime in the presence of the policemen. He was not acting suspiciously when he disembarked from the ship or while he rode the motorella. Moreover, the lawmen did not have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had committed an ofense. The search cannot be said to be incidental to a lawful arrest. Raw intelligence information is not a sufficient ground for a warrantless arrest. Nor can the silence of accused be taken as consent to the warrantless search. The police cannot also claim that there was no time to obtain a warrant since Administrative Circular No. 19, Series of 1987, allows application for search warrants even on Sundays and holidays or after office hours.