FACTS: P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant named Benjie,
that a certain “Aling Rosa” would be arriving from Baguio City the following
day, with a large volume of marijuana.
Acting on said tip, Abello assembled a team. Said team proceeded to West
Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City at around 4:00 in the afternoon 1988 and deployed
themselves near the Philippine National Bank building along Rizal Avenue and
the Caltex gasoline station.
While thus positioned, a Victory Liner Bus stopped in front
of the PNB building at around 6:30 in the evening of the same day from where two
females and a male got off.
It was at this stage that the informant pointed out to the
team “Aling Rosa” who was then carrying a travelling bag. Having ascertained
that accused-appellant was “Aling Rosa,” the team approached her and introduced
themselves as NARCOM agents. When Abello asked “Aling Rosa” about the contents
of her bag, the latter handed it to the former. Upon inspection, the bag was
found to contain dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked “Cash
Katutak.”
The team confiscated the bag together with the Victory Liner
bus ticket to which Lt. Domingo affixed his signature. Accused-appellant was then brought to the
NARCOM office for investigation where a Receipt of Property Seized was prepared
for the confiscated marijuana leaves. Instead of presenting its evidence, the
defense filed a “Demurrer to Evidence” alleging the illegality of the search
and seizure of the items thereby violating accused-appellant’s constitutional
right against unreasonable search and seizure as well as their inadmissibility in evidence. RTC convicted
accused-appellant of transporting eight (8) kilos and five hundred (500) grams
of marijuana from Baguio City to Olongapo City in violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972.
ISSUE/S: WON the warrantless search resulting to the arrest of
accused-appellant violated the latter’s constitutional rights.
HELD/RATIO:Yes. In the
instant case, the NARCOM agents were admittedly not armed with a warrant of
arrest. To legitimize the warrantless
search and seizure of accused-appellant’s bag, accused-appellant must have been
validly arrested under Section 5 of Rule 113 which provides that:
Sec. 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;
Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a
crime. Neither was she about to commit
one nor had she just committed a crime.
Accused-appellant was merely crossing the street and was not acting in
any manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect
and conclude that she was committing a crime.
It was only when the informant pointed to accused-appellant and
identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was
singled out as the suspect. The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended
accused-appellant were it not for the furtive finger of the informant because,
as clearly illustrated by the evidence on record, there was no reason whatsoever for them to
suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime, except for the pointing
finger of the informant. This the Court could neither sanction nor tolerate as
it is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
search and seizure. Neither was there
any semblance of any compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause
and warrantless arrests.
Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents
to effect a warrantless search of accused-appellant’s bag, there being no
probable cause and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully
arrested. Stated otherwise, the arrest
being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the subsequent search was
similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful arrest. The
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure must perforce
operate in favor of accused-appellant.
As such, the articles seized could not be used as evidence against
accused-appellant for these are “fruits of a poisoned tree” and, therefore,
must be rejected, pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment