Neil G.

Salaan October 4, 2020

Section 4 CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE

MARIO VERIDIANO vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 200370
June 7, 2017
(warrantless searches, requisites)

Facts:
1.) At about 7:20am of 15 January 2008, a concerned citizen called a certain PO3
Esteves, police radio operator of the Nagcarlan Police Station, informing him that a
certain alias “Baho” who was later identified as Veridiano, was on the way to San
Pablo City toobtain illegal drugs.

PO3 Esteves immediately relayed the information to PO1 Cabello and PO3
Alvin Vergara who were both on duty. Chief of Police JuneUrquia instructed PO1
Cabello and PO2 Vergara to set up a checkpoint at Barangay Taytay, Nagcarlan,
Laguna.

The police officers at the checkpoint personally knew Veridiano. They

chanced upon Veridiano at around 10PM inside a passenger jeepney coming from
San Pablo, Laguna. They flagged down the jeepney and asked the passengers to
disembark. The police officersinstructed the passengers to raise their t-shirts to
check for possible concealed weapons and to remove the contents of their pockets.

The police officers recovered from Veridiano “a tea bag containing what
appeared to be marijuana.” PO1 Cabello confiscated the teabag and marked it with
his initials. Veridiano was arrested and apprised of his constitutional rights. He was
then brought to thepolice station.

At the police station, PO1 Cabello turned over the seized tea bag to PO1
Solano, who also placed his initials. PO1 Solano then made a laboratory
examination request, which he personally brought with the seized tea bag to the
Philippine National Police crime laboratory. The contents of the tea bag tested
positive for marijuana.

2.) RTC found Veridiano guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
illegal possession of marijuana.

3.) Veridiano appealed the decision of the trial court asserting that "he was
illegally arrested." The CA rendered a Decision affirmingthe guilt of Veridiano.

4.) The Court of Appeals found that "Veridiano was caught

in flagrante delicto " of having marijuana in his possession.

5.) Veridiano moved for reconsideration which was denied.

6.) Veridiano filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari. Petition was granted.

Issue:
Whether there was a valid warrantless search against petitioner.

Veridiano was charged with the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
Veridiano appealed the decision of the trial court asserting that "he was illegally
arrested.
Veridiano further argued that the police officers failed to comply with the rule on
chain of custody.
The prosecution argued that Veridiano's "submissive deportment at the time of the
search" indicated that he consented to the warrantless search.

Ruling:

Petitioner's warrantless arrest was unlawful.

A search incidental to a lawful arrest requires that there must first be a lawful arrest
before a search is made. Otherwise stated, a lawful arrest must precede the search;
"the process cannot be reversed." For there to be a lawful arrest, law enforcers must
be armed with a valid warrant. Nevertheless, an arrest may also be affected without
a warrant.

There are three (3) grounds that will justify a warrantless arrest. Rule 113,
Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

Section 5.Arrest Without Warrant; When Lawful  - A peace officer or a private

person may, without a warrant, arrest a person (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 just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it.

A search incidental to a lawful arrest requires that there must first be a lawful arrest
before a search is made. Otherwise stated, a lawful arrest must precede the search;
"the process cannot be reversed. For there to be a lawful arrest, law enforcers must
be armed with a valid warrant. Nevertheless, an arrest may also be affected without
a warrant.
For a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be affected, "two elements
must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that
he [or she] has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer.
Failure to comply with the overt act test renders an inflagrante delicto arrest
constitutionally infirm. In Cogaed, (740 Phil. 212 (2014) Per J. Leonen, Third
Division].) the warrantless arrest was invalidated as an in flagrante delicto arrest
because the accused did not exhibit an overt act within the view of the police officers
suggesting that he was in possession of illegal drugs at the time he was
apprehended.
The warrantless search cannot be justified under the reasonable suspicion
requirement in "stop and frisk" searches. A "stop and frisk" search is defined in
People v. Chua 107 as "the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband."Thus, the allowable scope
of a "stop and frisk" search is limited to a "protective search of outer clothing for
weapons.
Although a "stop and frisk" search is a necessary law enforcement measure
specifically directed towards crime prevention, there is a need to safeguard the right
of individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Law enforcers do not have unbridled discretion in conducting "stop and frisk"
searches. While probable cause is not required, a "stop and frisk" search cannot be
validated on the basis of a suspicion or hunch. Law enforcers must have a genuine
reason to believe, based on their experience and the particular circumstances of
each case, that criminal activity may be afoot. Reliance on one (1) suspicious
activity alone, or none at all, cannot produce a reasonable search.

People of the Philippines vs. Billy Acosta

G.R. No. 238865,
January 28, 2019
(Plain view doctrine – Elements/requisites)

FACTS:
An Information was filed before the RTC accusing Acosta of the crime of
Illegal Planting and Cultivation of Marijuana Plant, defined and penalized under
Section 16, Article II of RA 9165.
The prosecution alleged that Salucana went to the Gingoog City Police
Station to report a mauling incident where Acosta purportedly hit him with a piece of
wood. He also reported that Acosta was illegally planting marijuana. Salucana’s
foregoing reports prompted the police authorities to proceed to Acosta’s home.
Thereat, Salucana positively identified Acosta who was then walking on the trail
leading towards his house. The police officers then rushed towards Acosta and
arrested him. After the arrest, SPO4 Legaspi found thirteen (13) hills of suspected
marijuana plants planted beneath the “gabi” plants just outside Acosta’s home, and
around a meter away from where he was arrested. Upon seeing the marijuana,
SPO4 Legaspi immediately called Barangay Captain Rodulfo Maturan and three
others to witness the uprooting of the suspected marijuana plants. Thereafter, they
brought Acosta and the uprooted marijuana plants to the police station for the
marking and inventory of the seized items.
In defense, Acosta denied the charges against him and maintained that the seized
marijuana plants are inadmissible in evidence as the “plain view” doctrine is not
applicable since the discovery was not inadvertent.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Acosta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It held that the requirements of the “plain
view” doctrine were complied with in that the police officers: (a) had prior justification
to be in the area in order to apprehend Acosta for the mauling incident; (b) did not
purposefully search for the marijuana plants but came across them inadvertently in
the course of the arrest as they were in their line of sight; and (c) were able to
recognize the marijuana plants owing to their different foliar characteristics from the
“gabi” plants.
Hence, Acosta appealed to the Supreme Court (this Court) seeking his conviction be
overturned.

ISSUES:
Section 2. Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure
must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon
the existence of probable cause, absent which, such search and seizure become
"unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional provision. To protect the
people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2), Article III of the
1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and
seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. In
other words, evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such
unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for
being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.

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 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.
Acosta argues that the second requisite of the plain view doctrine is absent since
the discovery of the police officers of the marijuana plants was not inadvertent as it
was prompted by Salucana. After a careful review of the records, this Court is
inclined to agree.
 The testimonies of P/Insp. Gundaya, SPO4 Legaspi, and Salucana collectively
show that the police officers proceeded with the arrest of Acosta for the mauling
incident armed with prior knowledge that he was also illegally planting marijuana.
All told, since the marijuana plants seized from Acosta constitute inadmissible
evidence in violation of Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and given
that the confiscated plants are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court
finds Acosta’s conviction to be improper and therefore, acquits him.
RULING:
Preliminaries: At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal
throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct
errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's
decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The
appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such
court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase
the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law [Sindac v. People, 794
Phil. 421 (2016)] Section 2,Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a
search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial
warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which, such search
and seizure become "unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional
provision. To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section
3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained from
unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose in any proceeding. In other words, evidence obtained and confiscated on
the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and
should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.