PEOPLE vs.

JACK RACHO
G.R. No. 186529 August 3, 2010

FACTS:

A confidential agent of the police transacted through cellular phone with appellant for
the purchase of shabu. Appellant called up the agent and informed him that he was on
board a Genesis bus and would arrive in Baler, Aurora. Having alighted from the bus,
appellant was about to board a tricycle when the team of police authorities approached
him and invited him to the police station. As he pulled out his hands, from his pants
pockets, a white envelope slipped therefrom which, when opened, yielded a small sachet
containing the suspected drug.

Appellant was charged in two separate Informations: 1) for violation of Sec. 5, RA 9165,
for transporting and delivering; and 2) Sec. 11 of the same law for possessing dangerous
drugs.

ISSUE:

Is the confiscated item admissible in evidence?

RULING:

NO. This is an instance of the seizure of the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” hence, is
inadmissible in evidence. The 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent
seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable
and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. Said proscription, however, admits of exceptions, namely:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest

2. Search of evidence “in plain view”
3. Search of a moving vehicle
4. Consented warrantless search
5. Customs search
6. Stop and frisk, and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.