PEOPLE VS OMAWENG

43 SCRA 46, 1992

FACTS: A cream-colored Ford Fiera driven by Conway Omaweng was flagged down by
Joseph Layong and other Police Constabulary Soldiers in a checkpoint
somewhere at the junction of Sagada and Bontoc Roads in Mt. Province.
Omaweng acceded to the PC soldiers’ request of inspecting hia vehicle. The
soldiers noticed a travelling bag partially covered by a spare tire under the
passenger seat on the right side of the vehicle. Layong and his companions
asked Omaweng if they could check the travelling bag, Omaweng consented.
Layong opened the bag and found 41 packets of pulverized substances which
were later on proven to be marijuana. Omaweng was charged and covicted with
violation of Sec 47, Art II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure conducted were unreasonable.

RULING: No. Omaweng willingly gave prior consent to the search and voluntarily agreed to
have it conducted in his vehicle and travelling bag. He waived his rights against
unreasonable searches when he consented to have the search made. The right
to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived. Since in
the course of the valid search, 41 packets of drugs were found, it behoved the
officers to seize the same; no warrant was necessary for such seizure. Besides,
when said packages were identified by the prosecution witnesss and later on
formally offered in evidence, the accused did not raise any objection whatsoever.
 PEOPLE VS COMPACION

GR No. 124442, 20 July 2001

FACTS: Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a police informant that Armando

Compacion was growing and cultivating marijuana plants, SPO1 Gilbert Linda
and SPO2 Basilio Sarong conducted surveillance of the residence of Compacion.
During the survelillance SPO1 Linda and SPO2 Basilio saw 2 tall plants in
Compacion’s backyard, suspected to e marijuana plants.The NARCOM tem of
Bacolod applied for a search warrant, but failed to acquire one because it was
already late at night and it is way beyond office house. Even without the warrant,
the police officers went to Compacion’s residece to search and seize the
suspected marijuana. The plants were uprooted abd yeilded positive results for
marijuana tesing

ISUUE: Whether Compacion’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures was
violated.

RULING: Yes. Sec 2 and 3 )2) Article III of the 1987 constitution are safeguards against
reckless, malicious, and unreasonable invasion of privacy and liberty. A judicial
warrant makes the search and seizure reasonable. However, the law recognizes
the following exceptions in acquiring a judicial warrant, to wit: a) when the
premises consents or voluntarily submits to a search; b) when the owner of the
premises waives his right against such incursion; c) when the search is incidental
to a lawful arrest; d) when it is made on automobiles for the purpose of
preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws; e) when it involves
prohibited articles in plain view; f) when it involves a “stop and frisk” situation; g)
when the search is under exigent and emergency circumstances; or h) in cases
of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary,
and building regulations. Consequently, Compacion's right against unreasonable
search and seizure was clearly violated. As a general rule, 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 without a warrant. It is usually applied where a police officer is
not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently
comes across an incriminating object. Thus, the following elements must be
present before the doctrine may be applied: (a) a prior valid intention based on
the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of
their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
who have the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately
apparent; and (d) "plain view" justified were seizure of evidence without further
search. Here, there was no valid warrantless arrest. They forced their way into
Compacion's premises without the latter's consent. It is undisputed that the
NARCOM agents conducted a surveillance of the residence of Compacion on 9
July 1995 on the suspicion that he was growing and cultivating marijuana when
they allegedly came in "plain view" of the marijuana plants. When the agents
entered his premises on 13 July 1995, their intention was to seize the evidence
against him. In fact, they initially wanted to secure a search warrant but could not
simply wait for one to be issued. The NARCOM agents, therefore, did not come
across the marijuana plants inadvertently when they conducted a surveillance
and barged into Compacion's residence. As held in People v. Musa, the "plain
view" doctrine 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. Hence, Compacion is
acquitted of the crime to which he was charge