Miclat vs.

People

656 SCRA 539

Agents of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit were conducting a surveillance operation in a certain area to verify
the reported drug-related activities of several individuals, which included the petitioner. During operation, PO3
Antonio, through petitioner’s window, caught Miclat in the act of arranging the heat-sealed plastic sachets in plain
sight of PO3 Antonio and he voluntarily surrendered them to him upon learning that he is a police officer. Miclat
was charged for Violation of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Petitioner raised no objection to the irregularity
of his arrest before arraignment. The RTC, after finding that the prosecution has established all the elements of the
offense charged, rendered a Decision convicting Miclat of the crime charged. On appeal, the CA rendered a
Decision affirming in toto the decision of the RTC. Miclat posits that being seen in act of arranging several plastic
sachets inside their house by one of the arresting officers who was peeping though a window is not sufficient
reason for the police authorities to enter his house without a valid search warrant and/or warrant of arrest. On the
issue whether the warrantless search and seizure of plastic sachets are admissible as evidence. The Supreme Court
held in the Affirmative. It is well settled that 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 and may be introduced in
evidence. It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight.

Note:

The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of
the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b)
the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

The right against warrantless searches and seizure, however, is subject to legal and judicial 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.

People vs. Mariacos

PO2 Pallayoc met with a secret agent of the Barangay Intelligence Network who informed him that a baggage of
marijuana had been loaded on a passenger jeepney that was about to leave for the poblacion. The agent
mentioned three (3) bags and one (1) blue plastic bag. Further, the agent described a backpack bag with an "O.K."
marking. PO2 Pallayoc then boarded the said jeepney and while the vehicle was in motion, he found the black
backpack with an "O.K." marking and peeked inside its contents and found bricks of marijuana wrapped in
newspapers. When the jeepney reached the poblacion, PO2 Pallayoc alighted together with the other passengers
but unfortunately, he did not notice who took the black backpack from atop the jeepney. He only realized a few
moments later that the said bag and three (3) other bags, including a blue plastic bag, were already being carried
away by two (2) women. He caught up with the women and introduced himself as a policeman and he told them
that they were under arrest, but one of the women got away. The one caught was Belen Mariacos. On the issue
whether the warrantless search and seizure is valid. The Supreme Court held in Affirmative. Search of a moving
vehicle is well recognized exception to the right against warrantless searches and seizure since they can quickly be
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought. It is readily apparent that the search in
this case is valid. Time was of the essence in this case and the searching officer had no time to obtain a warrant. On
the issue whether the search can precede the arrest without violating the rule on search incident to lawful arrest
(Warrantless search PRIOR to a valid arrest and not vice-versa). The Supreme Court held in Affirmative. A search
substantialy contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police has probable cause to make the
arrest at the outset of the search. Given that the search was valid, Mariacos’ arrest based on the search is also
valid.