You are on page 1of 2

10.12 Roan v.

Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687


Facts: The challenged search warrant was issued by the respondent judge on May 10, 1984. The
petitioner's house was searched two days later but none of the articles listed in the warrant was
discovered. However, the officers conducting the search found in the premises one Colt Magnum
revolver and 18 live bullets which they confiscated and the bases of the charge against the
petitioner.
Issue: Whether those seized from the petitioner could have been taken even without a warrant
Ruling: No. Prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the search is valid. In this case,
the Court found out that there was no valid search warrant. The applicant who asked for the
issuance of the search warrant was based on mere hearsay and not of information personally known
to him, as required by settled jurisprudence. In short, the military officers who entered the
petitioner's premises had no right to be there and therefore had no right either to seize the pistol and
bullets. It does not follow that because an offense is malum prohibitum, the subject thereof is
necessarily illegal per se. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita, but the subjects of this kind of
offense may not be summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. A search warrant is still
necessary.
The respondents cannot claim that they stumbled upon the pistol and bullets for the fact is that these
things were deliberately sought and were not in plain view when they were taken. Hence, the rule
having been violated and no exception being applicable, the conclusion is that the petitioner's pistol
and bullets were confiscated illegally and therefore are protected by the exclusionary principle.
10.13 United Laboratories v. Isip GR 163858 (June 28, 2005)
Facts: NBI raided the first and second floors of a building for the seizure of finished or unfinished
UNILAB products particularly counterfeit Revicon multivitamins. No fake Revicon multivitamins
were found; instead there were boxes of Disudrin and Inoflox, which were granted by the court to
be turned over to the custody of BFAD for examination. The respondents filed an Urgent Motion to
Quash the Search Warrant or to Suppress Evidence. They asserted that the NBI officers seized
Disudrin and Inoflox products which were not included in the list of properties to be seized in the
search warrant and were not illegal per se, like explosives and shabu, as to justify their seizure in
the course of unlawful search.
Issue: Whether the seizure of the Disudrin and Inoflox products was justified by the plain view
doctrine
Ruling: No. Objects, articles or papers not described in the warrant but on plain view of the
executing officer may be seized by him. However, the seizure by the officer of
objects/articles/papers not described in the warrant cannot be presumed as plain view. The State
must adduce evidence, testimonial or documentary, to prove the confluence of the essential
requirements for the doctrine to apply, namely: (a) the executing law enforcement officer has a prior
justification for an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position from which he can view a

particular order; (b) the officer must discover incriminating evidence inadvertently; and (c) it must
be immediately apparent to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.
The petitioner and the NBI failed to present any of the NBI agents who executed the warrant, or any
of the petitioners representative who was present at the time of the enforcement of the warrant to
prove that the enforcing officers discovered the sealed boxes inadvertently, and that such boxes and
their contents were incriminating and immediately apparent. It must be stressed that only the NBI
agent/agents who enforced the warrant had personal knowledge whether the sealed boxes and their
contents thereof were incriminating and that they were immediately apparent.
10.14 People v. Doria GR 125299, Jan. 22, 1999
Facts: Doria was entrapped and arrested in a buy-bust operation after the members of the North
Metropolitan District, PNP NARCOM, received information from 2 civilian informants that one
Jun was engaged in illegal drug activities. During the arrest, the marked bills handed to him as
payment for the marijuana could not be found on him. He revelead that he left the money at the
house of his associate named Neneth, whose house he led the police to. The team found the door
of Neneths house open and a woman inside, whom Jun identified as his associate. While asked
about the marked bills, a carton box under the dining table was noticed by one of the policemen,
PO3 Manlangit. The content of which is wrapped in plastic similar to the marijuana sold to them.
The box contained 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. Simultaneous with the
boxs discovery, was the recovery of the marked bills. Neneth was arrested and the box together
with its contents and marked bills were turned over to the investigators at the headquarters. This
was
Issue: Whether the box that contained bricks of marijuana is considered in plain view during the
seizure
Ruling: No. Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao was illegal, it follows that the
search of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot
be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest.
In his direct examination, PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure that the contents of the box
were marijuana because he himself checked and marked the said contents. On cross-examination,
however, he admitted that he merely presumed the contents to be marijuana because it had the same
plastic wrapping as the "buy-bust marijuana." A close scrutiny of the records reveals that the plastic
wrapper was not colorless and transparent as to clearly manifest its contents to a viewer. Each of the
10 bricks of marijuana in the box was individually wrapped in old newspaper and placed inside
plastic bags-- white, pink or blue in color. PO3 Manlangit himself admitted on cross-examination
that the contents of the box could be items other than marijuana. He did not know exactly what the
box contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its contents. It was not immediately
apparent to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box was marijuana. The marijuana was not in
plain view and its seizure without the requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and the
Constitution. It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been excluded and never considered
by the trial court.