G.R. No.

238865 January 28, 2019

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant
vs.
BILLY ACOSTA, Accused-Appellee

FACTS:

The foster father of accused Acosta, Salucana, has reported a

mauling incident where the latter him the former with a piece of
wood. Along with this report, he also added that the accused was
illegally planting marijuana. This report prompted the police
officers to proceed to accused’s home to arrest him. Upon reaching
his abode, they have confirmed that accused was indeed illegally
planting marijuana. Thus, his arrest.

In defense, accused argued that the seized marijuana plants

are inadmissible in evidence as the “plain view” doctrine is not
applicable. The discovery of which was inadvertent because it was
already pointed out by Salucana.

RTC found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. CA

affirmed the decision.

Hence, this appeal seeking the conviction of accused be

overturned.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, the CA has correctly affirmed the RTC

decision on convicting the accused.

RULING OF THE COURT:

The appeal is meritorious.

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 particular are; 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 court agreed with the accused’s argument that the
second requisite was absent since the discovery of the marijuana
was not inadvertent and it was prompted by Salucana.
Considering that the “plain view” doctrine is inapplicable to
the present case, the seized marijuana plants were inadmissible in
evidence against accused.

Therefore, the conviction was improper and thus, the court

acquitted accused Acosta.