People v. Evaristo, G.R. No.

93828, 216 SCRA 431, December 11, 1992

"Heard gunshots therefore an offense is being committed"

Waiver of right is the consent given in entering the house, resulting to seizure of
evidence in plain view.
The peace officers, while on patrol, heard bursts of gunfire and they proceeded to
investigate the matter. This incident is considered an offense and "an offense is
committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule
authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a
distance, or HEARS THE DISTURBANCES CREATED THEREBY AND PROCEEDS
AT ONCE TO THE SCENE THEREOF."

 While on routine patrol duty, the Philippine Constabulary officer patrolling heard
gunfire within the vicinity. When they came upon the source, Rosillo was firing a gun
into the air.
 Seeing the patrol, Rosillo ran to the nearby house of appellant Evaristo
prompting the lawmen to pursue him. Upon approaching the house, the patrol saw
appellants, Evaristo and Carillo, who were drunk. Inquiring as to the whereabouts of
Rosillo, the police patrol were told that he had already escaped.
 Vallarta noticed a bulge on Carillo’s waist and subsequently frisked him revealing
.38 caliber revolver. After ascertaining that Carillo was neither a member of the military
nor had a valid license to possess the said firearm, the gun was confiscated and Carillo
invited for questioning.
 Romeroso sought the consent of Evaristo for entry into the latter’s house to
search for Rosillo and Evaristo consented.
 Upon entry they found various firearms, paraphernalia, and other effects, which
became the basis for the charge of illegal possession of firearms.
 For their part, the appellants alleged that they were forcibly taken into custody.
They denied ownership or knowledge of any of the firearms, contending that these were
planted in their possession by the prosecution witnesses and other police authorities.
Whether the firearms are considered illegally seized evidence? NO.
 The Court ruled that doctrine of seizure of evidence in plain view, objects
inadvertently falling in the plain view of an officer, who has a the right to be in the
position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence.
 In this case, Romerosa was granted permission by the appellant Evaristo to enter
his house. The officer's purpose was to catch Rosillo whom he saw had sought refuge
inside. Therefore, it is clear that the search for firearms was not Romerosa's purpose in
entering the house, thereby rendering his discovery of the firearms as accidental. The
plain view doctrine will apply to the seizure of the firearms and effects because their
discovery was unintentional.
 The Court sustains the validly of the firearm's seizure and admissibility in
evidence, based on the rule on authorized warrantless arrests. Section 5, Rule 113 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
 Valid warrantless arrests
 (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 in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating 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 temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
 In this case, the second circumstance “an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it” is applicable. The peace officers, while on patrol, heard
bursts of gunfire and this proceeded to investigate the matter. This incident is
considered an offense and "an offense is committed in the presence or within the view
of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant,
when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or HEARS THE
DISTURBANCES CREATED THEREBY AND PROCEEDS AT ONCE TO THE SCENE
THEREOF."
 As for the existence of personal knowledge, the gunfire, the bulge in Carillo’s
waist, and the peace officer’s professional instinct are more than sufficient to grant him
personal knowledge of the facts of the crime that has just been committed.
Consequently, the firearm taken from Carillo can be said to have been seized incidental
to a lawful and valid arrest.
PEOPLE V MUSA

FACTS:

On 14 December 1989, the accused sold 2 wrappers containing marijuana leaves to

Sgt. Amado Ani in a buy-bust operation in Zamboanga City.

The said buy-bust operation was planned since a civilian informer told that Mari Musa
was engaged in selling marijuana and therefore, a test-buy was conducted the day prior
to the said buy-bust operation. During the buy-bust operation, after Sgt. Ani handed the
money to Musa, Musa entered his house to get the wrappings. Upon his return and with
the inspection of the wrappings, Musa was arrested, but the marked money used as
payment cannot be found with him, prompting the NARCOM agents to go inside his
house. There, they could not find the marked money, but they found more marijuana
leaves hidden in a plastic bag inside the kitchen.

The leaves were confirmed as marijuana by the forensic chemist of the PC crime
laboratory, who later on served as a witness, along with T/Sgt. Jesus Belarga, the team
leader of the buy-bust operation and Sgt. Ani.

The defense gave a different version of what happened on 14 December 1989 wherein
he and his wife, Ahara Musa, served as witnesses. They said that the NARCOM agents,
dressed in civilian clothes, got inside their house since the door was open, and upon
entering, declared that they were NARCOM agents and searched the house, despite
demands of the couple for a search warrant. The agents found a red bag whose
contents were unknown to the Musas.

Musa was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the trial court.

On appeal, Musa contests that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. He
also questioned the credibility of the witnesses, as well as the admissibility of the seized
plastic bag as evidence since it violates his constitutional rights against unreasonable
searches and seizures provided in Art. III, Sec. 2.

ISSUES:

1. WON Musa is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt

2. WON the seized plastic bag containing marijuana is admissible as evidence.

HELD/RATIO:

1. Yes. The testimony given by T/Sgt. Belarga only strengthened the testimony of Sgt.
Ani since it was the testimony of the latter that served as direct evidence, being enough
to prove the consummation of the sale of the prohibited drug, and that their testimonies
were not conflicting as well.

2. No. Although the warrantless search done falls under Sec. 12 of Rule 126 and that
the search may include premises or surroundings under the accused’s immediate
control, it does not fall under the “Plain View” doctrine. The agents found the plastic bag
inside the kitchen, and upon asking about the contents of the bag, the accused did not
answer, making the agents open the bag and find marijuana leaves. Even if an object is
observed in "plain view," the "plain view" doctrine will not justify the seizure of the object
where the incriminating nature of the object is not apparent from the "plain view" of the
object.
People v. Doria

People v. Florencio Doria [“ Jun ”] and Violeta Gaddao [ “Neneth ” ]

22 Jan 1999 / Puno / Appeal from a Pasig RTC decision
Search and seizure > Nature, scope and definition > Types > Warrantless search and
seizure > “ Plain view ” doctrine

FACTS
Members of the PNP Narcotics Command received information that one “ Jun” [Doria]
was engaged in illegal drug activities, so they decided to entrap and arrest him in a buy-
bust operation. He was arrested. They frisked him but did not find the marked bills on
him, and upon inquiry, he revealed that he left it at the house of his
associate “ Neneth ” [Gaddao], so he led the police team to her house.
            The team found the door open and a woman inside the house. “ Jun” identified
her as “Neneth, ” and she was asked by SPO1 Badua about the marked money as PO3
Manlangit looked over her house [he was still outside the house]. Standing by the door,
PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. One of the box’ s flaps was
open, and inside it was something wrapped in plastic, and it appeared similar to the
marijuana earlier sold to him by “ Jun. ” His suspicion aroused, so he entered the house
and took hold of the box. He peeked inside the box and saw 10 bricks of what appeared
to be dried marijuana leaves. SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills
from “ Neneth ” and they arrested her. The bricks were examined and they were found
to be dried marijuana leaves.
            Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged with violation of RA
6425 [Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972], Section 4 [Sale, Administration, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs] in relation to Section 21 [Attempt
and Conspiracy]. RTC convicted them.

ISSUE AND HOLDING

WON RTC correctly found that the box of marijuana was in plain view, making its
warrantless seizure valid. NO

RATIO
Re: warrantless arrest
Gaddao ’s warrantless arrest was illegal because she was arrested solely on the basis
of the alleged identification made by Doria. Doria did not point to her as his associate in
the drug business, but as the person with whom he left the marked bills. This
identification does not necessarily mean that Gaddao conspired with Doria in pushing
drugs. If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had
knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of the criminal
offense, the arrest is legally objectionable.
            Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal, 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.

“ Plain view ” issue
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have
that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in
evidence. 

Requisites
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 the 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

An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight.   The difficulty
arises when the object is inside a closed container.  Where the object seized was inside
a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized
without a warrant.  If the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from
its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain
view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may
be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
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."  Each
of the ten  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; hence, it 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.
The fact that the box containing about 6 kilos of marijuana was found in Gaddao ’s
house Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the submission of
proof that the sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller and the
presentation of the drug as evidence in court.
 Prosecution established the fact that in consideration of the P1,600.00 he
received, Doria sold and delivered 970 grams of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit, the
poseur-buyer
 Prosecution failed to prove that Gaddao conspired with accused-appellant Doria
in the sale of said drug

DORIA SENTENCED TO SUFFER RECLUSION PERPETUA + 500K FINE

GADDAO ACQUITTED
People vs. Valdez

Posted on March 2, 2017 by thecasedigester in Criminal Procedure

G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000

FACTS:

Abe Valdez y Dela Cruz, accused-appellant, is charged for violating Section 9 of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The
accused was allegedly caught in flagrante delicto and without authority of law, planted,
cultivated and cultured seven (7) fully grown marijuana plants known as Indian Hemp
from which dangerous drugs maybe manufactured or derived. Appellant was arraigned
and with assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial on the merits then
ensued.

The prosecution presented its witnesses, namely: SPO3 Marcelo Tipay, SPO2 Noel V.
Libunao, SPO2 Pedro S. Morales, SPO1 Romulo G. Tobias and PO2 Alfelmer I. Balut,
all member of the police force, who testified how the information was received, the
commencement of their operation and its details under the specific instruction of
Inspector Parungao. Accordingly, they found appellant alone in his nipa hut. They, then,
proceeded to look around the area where appellant had his kaingin and saw seven (7)
five-foot high, flowering marijuana plants in two rows, approximately 25 meters away
from his nipa hut. PO2 Balut asked appellant who owned the prohibited plants and,
according to Balut, the latter admitted that they were his. They uprooted the seven
marijuana plants, took photos of appellant standing beside the cannabis plants and
arrested him. One of the said plants was sent to the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory for analysis which produced a positive result. The prosecution also
presented a certification from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
that the land cultivated by appellant where the growing marijuana plants were found,
was part of the public domain. Appellant was acknowledged in the certification as the
occupant of the lot, but no Certificate of Stewardship had yet been issued in his favor.

The defense presented appellant as its sole witness. He testified he was weeding his
vegetable farm when he was called by a person whose identity he does not know. He
was asked to go with the latter to see something. This unknown person then brought
appellant to the place where the marijuana plants were found, approximately 100
meters away from his nipa hut. Five armed policemen were present and they made him
stand in front of the hemp plants. He was then asked if he knew anything about the
marijuana growing there. When he denied any knowledge thereof, SPO2 Libunao poked
a fist at him and told him to admit ownership of the plants. Appellant was so nervous
and afraid that he admitted owning the marijuana. The police team then brought him to
the police station at Villaverde. At the police headquarters, appellant reiterated that he
knew nothing about the marijuana plants seized by the police. Appellant contends that
there was unlawful search. First, the records show that the law enforcers had more than
ample time to secure a search warrant. Second, that the marijuana plants were found in
an unfenced lot does not remove appellant from the mantle of protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The right against unreasonable searches and
seizures is the immunity of one’s person, which includes his residence, his papers, and
other possessions.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not the search and seizure of the marijuana plants in the present case is
lawful and the seized evidence admissible.

(2) Whether or not the seized plants is admissible in evidence against the accused.

(3) Whether or not the prosecution has proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

(4) Whether or not the sentence of death by lethal injection is correct.

HELD:

In the instant case, there was no search warrant issued by a judge after personal
determination of the existence of probable cause given the fact that police had ample
time to obtain said warrant. The protection against illegal search and seizure is
constitutionally mandated and only under specific instances are searches allowed
without warrants. The mantle of protection extended by the Bill of Rights covers both
innocent and guilty alike against any form of high-handedness of law enforcers,
regardless of the praiseworthiness of their intentions.

With respect to the first issue, the confiscated plants were evidently obtained during an
illegal search and seizure. As to the second issue, which involves the admissibility of
the marijuana plants as evidence for the prosecution, the said plants cannot, as
products of an unlawful search and seizure, be used as evidence against appellant.
They are fruits of the proverbial poisoned tree. It was, therefore, a reversible error on
the part of the court a quo to have admitted and relied upon the seized marijuana plants
as evidence to convict appellant.

In the third issue, it is fundamental in criminal prosecutions that before an accused may
be convicted of a crime, the prosecution must establish by proof beyond reasonable
doubt that a crime was committed and that the accused is the author thereof. The
evidence arrayed against the accused, however, must not only stand the test of reason,
it must likewise be credible and competent. Competent evidence is “generally
admissible” evidence. Admissible evidence, in turn, is evidence “of such a character that
the court or judge is bound to receive it, that is, allow it to be introduced at trial. And as
earlier discussed, it was error on the trial court’s part to have admitted evidences
against the accused and to have relied upon said proofs to convict him for said
evidence is doubly tainted.

In the fourth issue, the Constitution decrees that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.” To justify the
conviction of the accused, the prosecution must adduce that quantum of evidence
sufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The prosecution
must stand or fall on its evidence and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the accused. Absent the required degree of proof of an accused’s guilt, he
is entitled to an acquittal.
People vs Elamparo
GR No. 121572
Facts:
In the morning of February 12, 1995, Police Officer Romeo Baldonado a supervising
policeman of Kalookan Police Station received a report from an informant that some
people are selling shabu and marijuana somewhere at Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City.
Police Officer Baldonado then formed a “buy-bust” operation team with Police Officer
Andala, Reantillo and Gaviola. Upon arrival at the reported area, Gaviola together with
the informant asset was being approached by runner Erwin Spencer. Later on, Spencer
returned with marijuana in which Gaviola handed the marked money and arrested
Spencer, but who freed himself and ran. The “buy-bust” team then pursued Spencer
who ran inside a bungalow-type house in which he was being trapped. The police
officers likewise found appellant repacking five (5) bricks of marijuana wrapped in a
newspaper on top of the round table inside the house’s sala.
Ruling of RTC / Reason of Appeal
The Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, convicted appellant of the crime of illegal
possession of drugs, imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering
him to pay a fine of P9,000,000.00.
The appellant contends that it is highly unusual for arresting officers to act on an
information of an unknown source without confirming the veracity of the report, and that
it is incredible that a peddler of marijuana would be so brazen as to approach total
strangers and offer to sell them marijuana. Appellant insists that he was charged with
illegal possession of marijuana because he failed to pay the police officers the amount
of P15,000.00 for his release, unlike Spencer, who paid said amount. Appellant assails
the legality of his arrest inside the house of his father for failure of the apprehending
officers to secure a search warrant. Lastly, appellant contends that if found guilty, the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority should be appreciated in his favor.
Issue:
Whether the arrest of the appellant is valid even without search warrant.
Ruling:
The court ruled that as to warrantless search, Sec 2, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution
prohibits a search and seizure without a judicial warrant and that Sec. 3 provides that
any evidence obtained without such search warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceding. However, it is not being absolute as the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures is subject to exceptions. The five generally accepted exceptions
to the right against warrantless searches and seizures have also been judicially
formulated, viz: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles,
(3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs searches, and (5) waiver by the accused
themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure.
In the case of People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668, 710-711 (1999), the plain view
doctrine was explained where it held that "Objects falling in plain view of an officer who
has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a
search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. 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 the 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 law enforcement officer must
lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can
particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently
across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye
and hand and its discovery inadvertent."
In the case presented, when Spencer wrenched himself free from the grasp of PO2
Gaviola and ran towards the house of appellant, the members of the “buy-bust” team
were justified in running after him and entering the house without search warrant for
they were in the hot of the heels of fleeing criminal. Once inside the house, the Police
Officer caught Spencer and recovered the “buy-bust” money from him. They also caught
the appellant in flagrante delicto repacking the marijuana bricks which were in full view
on top of a table. Thus, the police officers were not only authorized but also duty bound
to arrest him even without warrant.
People v. Pasudag G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001

Facts: Around 1:30 in the afternoon, SPO2 Pepito Calip urinated at a bushy bamboo
fence behind the public school. About five (5) meters away, he saw a garden of about
70 square meters. There were marijuana plants in between corn plants and camote
tops. He inquired from a storekeeper nearby as to who owned the house with the
garden. The storeowner told him that Alberto Pasudag owned it. He went to the Police
Station and reported to Chief of Police. The latter dispatched team to conduct an
investigation. At around 2:30 in that same afternoon, the team arrived and went straight
to the house of accused Pasudag. SPO3 Fajarito looked for accused Pasudag and
asked him to bring the team to his backyard garden which was about five 5 meters
away. Upon seeing the marijuana plants, the policemen called for a photographer, who
took pictures of accused Pasudag standing besides one of the marijuana plants. They
uprooted 7 marijuana plants. The team brought accused Pasudag and the marijuana
plants to the police station. At the police station, accused Pasudag admitted, in the
presence of Chief of Police that he owned the marijuana plants.  On March 18, 1997,
the trial court rendered a decision finding the accused guilty as charged and, taking into
consideration his educational attainment (he reached only grade IV), Hence, this
appeal. In his brief, accused-appellant contended that the trial court erred in finding that
the marijuana plant submitted for laboratory examination was one of the seven (7)
marijuana plants confiscated from his garden; that the trial court erred in concluding that
the confiscation report was not an extrajudicial admission which required the
intervention of his counsel; and in convicting him on the basis of inference that he
planted, cultivated and cultured the seven (7) plants, owned the same or that he
permitted others to cultivate the same. The Solicitor General contended that accused-
appellant admitted before the lower court that tile specimen was one of the plants
confiscated in his backyard; that appellant was not under custodial investigation when
he signed the confiscation report; and that the inferences deduced by the lower court
strengthened the conviction of accused-appellant.

Issue: Whether the arrest of the accused requires urgency or necessity for the
warrantless search

Held: No, the Court ruled that search and seizure conducted without the requisite
judicial warrant is illegal and void ab initio. The prosecution’s evidence clearly
established that the police conducted a search of accused’s backyard garden without a
warrant; they had sufficient time to obtain a search warrant; they failed to secure one.
There was no showing of urgency or necessity for the warrantless search, or the
immediate seizure of the marijuana plants. The Court is not unmindful of the difficulties
of law enforcement agencies in suppressing the illegal traffic of dangerous drugs.
However, quick solutions of crimes and apprehension of malefactors do not justify a
callous disregard of the Bill of Rights.”We need not underscore that the protection
against illegal search and seizure is constitutionally mandated and only under specific
instances are searches allowed without warrants.” “The mantle of protection extended
by the Bill of Rights covers both innocent and guilty alike against any form of high
handedness of law enforcers, regardless of the praise worthiness of their intentions.”
With the illegal seizure of the marijuana plants subject of this case, the seized plants are
inadmissible in evidence against accused-appellant.
People vs. Joselito del Rosario – GR 127755, April 14, 1999

FACTS

The accused-appellant was convicted of the robbery with homicide and sentenced to
death. The conviction of the accused was based on the testimony of a tricycle driver
who claimed that the accused was the one who drove the tricycle, which the suspects
used as their get-away vehicle. The accused was then invited by the police for
questioning and he pointed to the location where he dropped off the suspects. When the
police arrived at the supposed hide-out, a shooting incident ensued, resulting to the
death of some of the suspects.

After the incident, the accused was taken back to the precint where his statement was
taken on May 14, 1996. However, this was only subscribed on May 22, 1996 and the
accused was made to execute a waiver of detention in the presence of Ex-Judge
Talavera. It was noted that the accused was handcuffed through all this time upon
orders of the fiscal and based on the authorities' belief that the accused might attempt to
escape otherwise.

ISSUES

(1) Whether the Miranda rights of the accused-appellant were violated.

(2) Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant was lawful.

HELD

(1) YES. It was established that the accused was not apprised of his rights to remain
silent and to have competent and independent counsel in the course of the
investigation. The Court held that the accused should always be apprised of his
Miranda rights from the moment he is arrested by the authorities as this is
deemed the start of custodial investigation. In fact, the Court included
“invitations” by police officers in the scope of custodial investigations.
It is evident in this case that when the police invited the accused-appellant to the
station, he was already considered as the suspect in the case. Therefore, the questions
asked of him were no longer general inquiries into an unsolved crime, but were intended
to elicit information about his participation in the crime.

However, the Miranda rights may be waived, provided that the waiver is voluntary,
express, in writing and made in the presence of counsel. Unfortunately, the prosecution
failed to establish that the accused made such a waiver.

(2) NO. There are certain situations when authorities may conduct a lawful
warrantless arrest: (a) when the accused is caught in flagrante delicto; (b) when
the arrest is made immediately after the crime was committed; and © when the
one to be arrested is an escaped convict. The arrest of the accused in this case
did not fall in any of these exceptions. The arrest was not conducted immediately
after the consummation of the crime; rather, it was done a day after. The
authorities also did not have personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the
person to be arrested had committed the offense because they were not there
when the crime was committed. They merely relied on the account of one
eyewitness.

Unfortunately, athough the warrantless arrest was not lawful, this did not affect the
jurisdiction of the Court in this case because the accused still submitted to arraignment
despite the illegality of his arrest. In effect, he waived his right to contest the legality of
the warrantless arrest.
PEOPLE v. SALANGUIT

FACTS: Two criminal cases were filed against Salanguit, the first for possession/use of
shabu, and the second, for possession/use of marijuana. Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied in the
RTC of Cavite a warrant to search the premises of Robert Salanguit for shabu and
shabu paraphernalias. He presented as a witness Edmund Badua, an undercover
officer, which transacted with Salanguit for the purchase of shabu.

The application was granted and the team of Aguilar proceeded to the premises of
Salanguit in QC to serve the warrant. The operatives proceeded to knock on Salanguit’s
door but the same was left unanswered. The operatives heard people panicking inside
the house and they began to force their way inside the house. They indicated their
authority to conduct the search and began which yielded to the finding of clear plastic
bags with shabu and 2 bricks of dried marijuana leaves covered in newspaper.

Salanguit refused to sign the receipt for the confiscated drugs. During his arraignment,
he pleaded not guilty and in the trial court, he gave stated that he never got the chance
to review the purported warrant that Aguilar and his team has. He further stated that the
operatives ate their food and took his cash and valuable, as well as canned goods.

The RTC found him guilty for possession/use of shabu and marijuana. Salanguit
appealed the said decision and argues that the shabu allegedly recovered from his
residence is inadmissible as evidence against him on the ground that the warrant used
to obtain it was invalid and that the marijuana seized from him was also inadmissible as
evidence against him pursuant to the plain view doctrine, and that the operatives
employed unnecessary force in executing the warrant.

ISSUES:

1. W/N the warrant used to seize the shabu was valid and the said shabu was
inadmissible in evidence against him.
2. W/N the marijuana seized was admissible in evidence against Salanguit pursuant to
plain view doctrine.

HELD:

1. Yes, all the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant were satisfied.

2. No, the marijuana was not one of the drugs indicated in the warrant and it was not in
plain view when it was seized.

RATIO:

1. The warrant authorized the seizure of undetermined quantity of shabu and drug
paraphernalia. Salanguit contends that it should be void as it did not indicate the
existence of drug paraphernalias. The warrant was valid as to the seizure of shabu and
void as to the seizure of drug paraphernalia. It is to be noted that no drug paraphernalia
was seized. Salanguit further contends that the warrant was issued for more than one
specific offense because possession or uses are punished under two different
provisions in the Dangerous Drugs Act. This Court has decided in the case of People v
Dichoso that a warrant that does not specify what provisions of the law were violated, is
valid as to the authority to search and seize marijuana, shabu and drug paraphernalias.
Lastly, Salanguit argues that the search warrant failed to indicate the place to be
searched with sufficient particularity. The rule is that a description of the place to be
searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain
and identify the place to be searched. The location of Salanguit’s house being indicated
by the evidence on record, there can be no doubt that the warrant described the place
to be searched with sufficient particularity.

2. Because the location of the shabu was indicated in the warrant and thus known to the
police operatives, it is reasonable to assume that the police found the packets and
shabu first. Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed, the plain
view doctrine can no longer provide basis for admitting the other items subsequently
found. The marijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint. There was no apparent
illegality to justify their seizure. Not being in a transparent container, the contents
wrapped in newsprint could not have been readily discernible as marijuana. That being
said, we hold that the marijuana is inadmissible in evidence against Salanguit.