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.