PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

ABDUL MACALABA
G.R. Nos. 146284-86. | January 20, 2003
Davide,C. J.

Doctrine: In plain view doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer are
subject to seizure and may also be admitted as evidence.

FACTS
Accused-appellant was charged with violations of PD 1866, Art. 168 of the Revised
Penal Code and Section 16, Art. 3 of the Dangerous Drugs According to the version presented by
the prosecution, the police authorities received an order from Mayor Pagkalinawan to search for
accused-appellant based on a verified information that the latter was driving a carnapped car and
was a drug pusher. Two teams were formed for the search and they followed the suspected
carnapped car. When the same stopped due to the red light, the authorities introduced themselves
and asked the accused-appellant to turn on the light and show them the cars certificate of
registration. In the course of this, a police officer saw a.45 caliber gun in an open beltbag and
demanded for the supporting papers of the gun but the accused-appellant failed to present any.
When the accused was looking for such papers and opened the zippers of the bag, the police
found four sachets of what appeared to be shabu and several more items including counterfeited
money, ammunitions and list of persons.
Accused-appellant belies the charges against him and asserts that he was about to park
the car when the police approached and pointed their guns to them. He also contends that he was
able to present the supporting documents for the firearms and permits to carry. Moreover, he
denies ownership of the white plastic bag. After trial, the RTC acquitted accused-appellant for
violation of PD 1866 and Art. 168 due to insufficiency of evidence. However, it convicted him
for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act.
On appeal, he contends among others that the court erred in admitting the evidence
presented by the prosecution because the same was obtained in violation of his rights. He asserts
that he was not committing a crime when the CIS agents boarded his car, searched the same and
ultimately arrested him. He was about to park his borrowed car per instruction by the owner
when he was harassed by the operatives at gunpoint. The gun seen was properly documented;
thus, there was no reason for the CIS agents to bring him and his companion to the headquarters.
The shabu allegedly found in the car was brought in by somebody at the time he was under
interrogation. Lastly, he also contends that his arrest was illegal since the members of the CIDG
had no personal knowledge because they merely relied on the information of the anonymous
telephone caller.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the warrantless arrest and search and seizure conducted on Abdul falls within the
list of valid exemption from the warrant requirement? - YES
It is a well-settled doctrine that there are valid exceptions to the need of warrant in
arrests as well as in searches and seizures. In the case at bar, the police authorities acted
on the basis of an intelligence information and conducted steps to follow the accused-
appellant. When the same was spotted, the police asked for the registration papers of the
car and in the course of doing so, they spotted transparent sachets of shabu. The said

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 sachets is known to be in the plain view of the enforcers. Under the plain view doctrine,
unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position
to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. Nonetheless,
the seizure of evidence in plain view must comply with the following requirements: (a) a
prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to
be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) the plain view
justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. All the foregoing elements are
present in the case at bar.
Lastly, since the possession of illegal drugs is a crime in itself, the warrantless
arrest is justified for being akin to arrest without warrant in flagrante delicto.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, in
Criminal Case No. 1238 convicting appellant ABDUL MACALABA y DIGAYON of the
violation of Section 16 of Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as
amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of
P500,000 and the costs of the suit, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2