PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.
Facts of the Case:
NOEL TUDTUD Y PAYPA AND DINDO BOLONG Y NARET,
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
G.R. No. 144037 | September 26, 2003 | TINGA, J.  alleged involvement in marijuana distribution in their neighborhood.
Digest by: BALAYAN
Topic: The Primacy of the Bill of Rights (Article III of the 1987
Philippine Constitution) & Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure
Doctrine: Article III covers unreasonable searches and seizures. The
following instances are not deemed unreasonable even in the absence of a
warrant:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
2. Search of evidence in “plain view.”
2.1. a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties;
2.2. the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who
have the right to be where they are;
2.3. the evidence must be immediately apparent;
2.4. plain view” justified the mere seizure of evidence without
further search;
3. Search of a moving vehicle
4. Consented warrantless search
5. Customs search
6. Stop and Frisk
Furthermore, Rule 113 the Rules, in turn, allows warrantless arrests:
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.
 In July and August 1999, the Toril Police Station received a report
from Bobong Solier, a civilian informant, regarding Noel Tudtud's
 PO1 Desierto, PO1 Floreta, and SPO1 Villalonghan conducted a
five-day surveillance operation in the Sapa neighborhood,
confirming Tudtud's participation in illegal drug activities based on
gathered intelligence and testimonies.
 On August 1, 1999, Solier informed the police that Tudtud would
return from Cotabato with a new supply of marijuana. PO1 Desierto,
PO1 Floreta, and SPO1 Villalonghan positioned themselves to await
his arrival.
 Around 8:00 p.m. that evening, two individuals matching Tudtud's
description disembarked from a bus carrying a carton labeled as King
Flakes. PO1 Desierto and PO1 Floreta observed one of the men
carrying a plastic bag.
 PO1 Desierto and PO1 Floreta approached the suspects, identified
themselves as police officers, and informed them of the intelligence
received. Tudtud consented to inspecting the carton's contents,
opening it in front of his companion.
 The carton contained dried fish, underneath which were two bundles
wrapped in a plastic bag and newspapers. PO1 Desierto instructed
Tudtud to unwrap the packages, revealing suspected marijuana
leaves.
 The confiscated items were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
analysis. Forensic chemist Police Chief Inspector Noemi Austero
confirmed the presence of marijuana leaves, with 3,200 grams in the
plastic bag and 890 grams in the newspapers.
 Five witnesses, including the arresting officers, civilian informant,
forensic chemist, and exhibit custodian, testified in line with the
presented facts.
 The accused denied the charges and alleged being framed.
 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City found both accused
guilty as charged and sentenced them to suffer the reclusion perpetua
penalty and pay a fine of P500,000.00.
  During the appeal, Noel Tudtud and Dindo Bolong raised concerns
about the admissibility of the marijuana leaves, claiming their seizure
violated their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and
seizures.
Issue of the Case:
The question at hand is whether Tudtud's implied consent,
specifically his statement of "it's all right," can be interpreted as a waiver.
The Ruling of the Case:
NO. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is secured
by Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the Constitution. Appellants implied acquiescence, if at
all, could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under
coercive or intimidating circumstances and is, thus, considered no consent
within the constitutional guarantee's purview. Consequently, the appellant’s
lack of objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of
his constitutional right or voluntary submission to the warrantless search and
seizure.
As the search of the appellant’s box does not come under the
recognized exceptions to a valid warrantless search, the marijuana leaves
obtained thereby are inadmissible in evidence. And as there is no evidence
other than the hearsay testimony of the arresting officers and their informant,
the conviction of appellants cannot be sustained.
Dispositive Portion:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City is

REVERSED. Appellants Noel Tudtud y Paypa and Dindo Bolong y Naret
are hereby ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence. The Director of the
Bureau of Prisons is ordered to cause the immediate release of appellants
from confinement unless they are being held for some other lawful cause and
to report to this Court compliance herewith within five (5) days from receipt
hereof.

SO ORDERED.