Presentación de resultados

Facts: On 13 December 1989, the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) in Zamboanga City conducted surveillance and test buy on a certain Mari Musa of Suterville, Zamboanga City. Information received from civilian informer was that this Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in said place. The Narcom agent (Sgt. Ani) was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for P10.00, which was turned over to the Narcom office. The next day, a buy- bust was planned with Sgt. Ani being the poseur-buyer. NARCOM teams proceeded to the target site in 2 civilian vehicles. Ani gave Musa the P20.00 marked money. Musa returned to his house and gave Ani 2 newspaper wrappers containing dried marijuana. The signal to apprehend Musa was given. The NARCOM team rushed to the location of Ani, and a NARCOM officer (Sgt. Belarga) frisked Musa but did not find the marked money. The money was given to Musa’s wife who was able to slip away. Later, Belarga found a plastic bag containing dried marijuana inside it somewhere in the kitchen. Musa was placed under arrest and was brought to the NARCOM office. One newspaper-wrapper marijuana and the plastic bag containing more marijuana was sent to the PC Crime Laboratory, the test of which gave positive results for the presence of marijuana. On the other hand, Mari Musa alleged that the NARCOM agents, dressed in civilian clothes, got inside his house without any search warrant, neither his permission to enter the house. The NARCOM agents searched the house and allegedly found a red plastic bag whose contents, Mari Musa said, he did not know. He also did not know if the plastic bag belonged to his brother, Faisal, who was living with him, or his father, who was living in another house about ten arms-length away. Mari Musa was handcuffed and was taken to the NARCOM office where he was joined by his wife. Musa claimed that he was subjected to torture when he refused to sign the document containing details of the investigation. The next day, he was taken to the fiscal‘s office to which he was allegedly made to answer to a single question: that if he owned the marijuana. He allegedly was not able to tell the fiscal that he had been maltreated by the

NARCOM agents because he was afraid he might be maltreated in the fiscal’s office. Mari Musa was brought to the City Jail. Still, an information against Musa was filed on 15 December 1989. Upon his arraignment on 11 January 1990, Musa pleaded not guilty. After trial and on 31 August 1990, the RTC Zamboanga City (Branch XII) found him guilty of selling marijuana in violation of Article II, Section 4 of RA 6425. Musa appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the contents of the red plastic bag found in the kitchen may be admitted as evidence as evidence acquired incidental to a lawful arrest.

Held: Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the arresting officer to make a search upon the person of the person arrested. An officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested and money or property found upon his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or of escaping, or which may be used as evidence in the trial of the cause. Hence, in a buy-bust operation conducted to entrap a drug-pusher, the law enforcement agents may seize the marked money found on the person of the pusher immediately after the arrest even without arrest and search warrants. The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a

suspect’s lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Objects in the “plain view” of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. When the discovery of the evidence did not constitute a search, but where the officer merely saw what was placed before him in full view, the warrantless seizure of the object was

legal on the basis of the “plain view” doctrine and upheld the admissibility of said evidence. The “plain view” doctrine, however, may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant’s guilt. The “plain view” doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. What the ‘plain view’ cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification — whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused — and permits the warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the ‘plain view’ doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges. The “plain view” doctrine neither justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating nature of the object is not apparent from the “plain view” of the object. Thus, the exclusion of the plastic bag containing marijuana does not, however, diminish, in any way, the damaging effect of the other pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the appellant sold marijuana, in violation of Article II, Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. By virtue of the

testimonies of Sgt. Ani and T/Sgt. Belarga and the two wrappings of marijuana sold by Musa to Sgt. Ani, among other pieces of evidence, the guilt of Musa of the crime charged has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

People vs. Libnao [GR 136860, 20 January 2003] Third Division, Puno (J): 4 concur

Facts: On August 1996, intelligence operatives of the Philippine National Police (PNP) stationed in Tarlac, Tarlac began conducting surveillance operation on suspected drug dealers in the area. They learned from their asset that a certain woman from Tajiri, Tarlac and a companion from Baguio City were transporting illegal drugs once a month in big bulks. On 19 October 1996, at about 10 p.m., Chief Inspector Benjamin Arceo, Tarlac Police Chief, held a briefing in

connection with a tip which his office received that the two drug pushers, riding in a tricycle, would be making a delivery that night. An hour later, the Police Alert Team installed a

checkpoint in Barangay Salapungan to apprehend the suspects. Witness SPO1 Marlon Gamotea, PO3 Florante Ferrer and SPO3 Roberto Aquino were assigned to man the checkpoint. At about 1:00 a.m. of the following day, SPO1 Gamotea and PO3 Ferrer flagged down a passing tricycle. It had two female passengers seated inside, who were later identified as Agpanga Libnao and Rosita Nunga. In front of them was a black bag. Suspicious of the black bag and the two’s uneasy behavior when asked about its ownership and content, the officers invited them to Kabayan Center 2 located at the same barangay. They brought with them the black bag. Upon reaching the center, PO3 Ferrer fetched Barangay Captain Roy Pascual to witness the opening of the black bag. In the meantime, the two women and the bag were turned over to the investigator on duty, SPO3 Arthur Antonio. As soon as the barangay captain arrived, the black bag was opened in the presence of Libnao, Nunga, and personnel of the center. Found inside it were 8 bricks of leaves sealed in plastic bags and covered with newspaper. The leaves were suspected to be marijuana. To determine who owns the bag and its contents, SPO3 Antonio interrogated the

two. Nunga stated that it was owned by Libnao. The latter, in turn, disputed this allegation. Thereafter, they were made to sign a confiscation receipt without the assistance of any counsel, as they were not informed of their right to have one. During the course of the investigation, not even close relatives of theirs were present. The seized articles were later brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory in San Fernando, Pampanga on 23 October 1996. Forensic Chemist Daisy P. Babu conducted a laboratory examination on them. She concluded that the articles were

marijuana leaves weighing eight kilos. Libnao and Nunga were charged for violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. On 19 November 1998, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Tarlac City, found Libnao and Nunga guilty. For their conviction, each was sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of two million pesos. Libnao appealed.

Issue: Whether the warrantless search and seizure made upon Libnao and Nunga was reasonable. Held: The constitutional guarantee (in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution) is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures as it operates only against “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Searches and seizures are as a rule unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. Thus, the fundamental protection accorded by the search and seizure clause is that between persons and police must stand the protective authority of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants and warrants of arrest. Be that as it may, the requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a search and seizure is not absolute. There are certain familiar

exceptions to the rule, one of which relates to search of moving vehicles. Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are allowed in recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. Peace officers in such cases, however, are limited to routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains as item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction. The warrantless search herein is not bereft of a probable cause. The Tarlac Police Intelligence Division had been conducting surveillance operation for three months in the area. The

surveillance yielded the information that once a month, Libnao and Nunga transport drugs in big bulks. At 10:00 pm of 19 October 1996, the police received a tip that the two will be transporting drugs that night riding a tricycle. Surely, the two were intercepted three hours later, riding a tricycle and carrying a suspicious-looking black bag, which possibly contained the drugs in bulk. When they were asked who owned it and what its content was, both became uneasy. Under these circumstances, the warrantless search and seizure of Libnao’s bag was not illegal. It is also clear that at the time she was apprehended, she was committing a criminal offense. She was making a delivery or transporting prohibited drugs in violation of Article II, Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425. Under the Rules of Court, one of the instances a police officer is permitted to carry out a warrantless arrest is when the person to be arrested is caught committing a crime in flagrante delicto.

People vs. Estrella [GR 138539-40, 21 January 2003] Third Division, Panganiban (J): 4 concur

Facts: Prior to 20 November 1996, Executive Judge Romulo Estrada of the Regional Trial Court of Zambales issued a warrant for the conduct of a search and seizure in the residence of Antonio C. Estella at Purok Yakal, Barangay Baloganon, Masinloc, Zambales. In the morning of 20 November 1996, Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) Antonio Buloron, then Intelligence and

Investigation Officer, together with SPO1 Jose Arca and several other members of the Provincial Special Operation Group based in Burgos, San Marcelino, Zambales proceeded to Masinloc. They coordinated with the members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Masinloc and sought the assistance of Barangay Captain Rey Barnachea of Baloganon, Masinloc for the enforcement of the search warrant. Barangay Captain Barnachea accompanied the police officers to Purok Yakal, Barangay Baloganon, Masinloc, the place mentioned in the search warrant. On their way to Purok Yakal, SPO1 Buloron saw Estrella sitting on a rocking chair located about 2 meters away from a hut owned by Narding Estella, the latter’s brother, and being rented by Estrella’s live-in partner, named Eva. They approached Estrella and introduced themselves as police officers. They showed Estrella the search warrant and explained the contents to him. SPO1 Buloron asked Estrella if indeed he had in his possession prohibited drug and if so, to surrender the same so he would deserve a lesser penalty. While inside the hut, Estrella

surrendered to the team 2 cans containing dried marijuana fruiting tops. One can contained 20 bricks of fruiting tops. The team searched the hut in the presence of Estrella and his live-in partner. They found a plastic container under the kitchen table, which contained 4 big bricks of dried marijuana leaves and a .38 caliber revolver with four live ammunitions. The team seized the prohibited drug, the revolver and ammunitions. The team seized and signed a receipt for the seized items. Barangay Captain Barnachea and SPO1 Edgar Bermudez of the Masinloc Police Station also signed the receipt as witnesses. SPO1 Buloron and his companions arrested Estrella and brought him to San Marcelino, Zambales. The defense, however, alleged otherwise and claimed that on 20 November 1996 between 10:30 and 11:00 a.m., while Estrella was talking with his friends Rael Tapado and Victor de Leon at a vacant lot just outside the house of Camillo Torres and about 70 meters away from his house, a group of men approached them. The group introduced themselves as policemen and told them that they were looking for Antonio Estella because they have a search warrant issued against him. Estrella identified himself to them. The policemen inquired from Estrella as to where his house is located and Estrella told them that his house is located across the road. The police did not believe him and insisted that Estrella’s house is that house located about 5–8 meters away from them. Estrella told the policemen to inquire from the Barangay Captain Barnachea as to where his house is and heard the latter telling the policemen that his house is located near the Abokabar junk shop. After about half an hour, the policemen went inside the house nearby and when they came out, they had with them a bulk of plastic and had it shown to Estrella. They photographed Estrella and brought him to their office at San Marcelino, Zambales. Estella was investigated at San Marcelino, Zambales where he informed the police officers of the fact that the house they searched was occupied by Spouses Vicente and Fely Bakdangan. Still, Estrella was charged for possession of prohibited drugs and unlicensed firearms. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales (Branch 69), in Criminal Case RTC 2143-I and on 25 August 1998, found Estrella guilty of violating Section 8, Article II of RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The 8.320 kilograms of dried marijuana was ordered confiscated in favor of the government, and the Sheriff

was directed to deliver the subject marijuana to the Dangerous Drugs Board for its proper disposition. On the other hand, Estrella was acquitted from the charge of violation of PD 1866 The .38 caliber revolver without serial number and 4 live ammunitions, subject of the offense, were however ordered delivered to any authorized representative of the Philippine National Police, Firearms and Explosives Division, Camp Crame, Quezon City. Estrella appealed said decision.

Issue: Whether the search undertaken inside the hut — during which the incriminating evidence was allegedly recovered — was legal.

Held: There is no convincing proof that Estrella indeed surrendered the prohibited drug, whether voluntarily or otherwise. In fact, the testimony of Prosecution Witness Barnachea clouds rather than clarifies the prosecution’s story. Given this backdrop, the police authorities cannot claim that the search was incident to a lawful arrest. Such a search presupposes a lawful or valid arrest and can only be invoked through Section 5 (Arrest without warrant; when lawful), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides that “A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 Rule 112.” Never was it proven that Estrella, who was the person to be arrested, was in

possession of the subject prohibited drug during the search. It follows, therefore, that there was no way of knowing if he had committed or was actually committing an offense in the presence of the arresting officers. Without that knowledge, there could have been no search incident to a lawful arrest. Assuming arguendo that appellant was indeed committing an offense in the presence of the arresting officers, and that the arrest without a warrant was lawful, it still cannot be said that the search conducted was within the confines of the law. Searches and seizures incident to lawful arrests are governed by Section 12 (Search incident to lawful arrest), Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that “A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.” However, the scope of the search should be limited to the area within which the person to be arrested can reach for a

weapon or for evidence that he or she can destroy. The prevailing rule is that the arresting officer may take from the arrested individual any money or property found upon the latter’s person — that which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime, or which may