Case Digest: People v. Aruta (G.R. No. 120915)

People v. Aruta | G.R. No. 120915 | April 3, 1998 | Romero, J. | Topic: Art 3 - Sec. 2 | 

Recit Ready Summary

• Respondent Aruta was arrested and charged for transporting 8 kilos and 500 grams of dried marijuana packed in plastic bags marked “Cash Katutak” placed in a travelling bag. Respondent plead “not guilty” in the arraignment. 
• The defense filed a “Demurrer to Evidence” alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the items thereby violating Aruta’s constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure as well as the inadmissibility of the evidence. 
• In her defense, respondent Aruta claims that she just came from Choice Theater where she watched the movie “Balweg” and that she was in the middle of the road alighting a bus when the authorities asked her to go with them to the NARCOM office. 
• RTC was not convinced and sentenced Aruta to life imprisonment and a fine of Php 20,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Hence, this appeal. Aruta contends that the search is invalid, it being issued without probable cause and that there was no warrant presented upon her arrest. 
• The SC ruled that the warrantless search and arrest was invalid. There was no legal basis for NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless search of Aruta’s bag, there being no probable cause and Aruta not having been lawfully arrested. The warrantless search and seizure was not legitimized because Aruta cannot be said to be commiting a crime. Neither was she about to commit nor had she just committed a crime. The search made also does not fall with the exceptions provided by law. Had the NARCOM agents only applied for a search warrant, they could have secured one without too much difficulty since the person to be searched has been particularized and the thing to be seized specified and considering that they had 24 hours to do so. Given this, the articles seized could not be used as evidence. SC reversed the RTC ruling and respondent is hereby acquitted

FACTS:

• Rosa Aruta y Menguin was arrested and charged with violating Sec. 4, Art. II of RA No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act 
• Engaged in transporting approximately 8 kilos and 500 grams of dried marijuana packed in plastic bag marked “Cash Katutak” placed in a travelling bag, which are prohibited drugs 
• She pleaded not guilty upon arraginment. After trial, the RTC of Olongapo convicted and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of lise imprisonment and a fine of P20,000. 
• The prosecution relied on the testimonies of P/Lt. Ernesto Abello, Officer-in-Charge of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) of Olongapo City and P/Lt. Jose Domingo. Their testimonies found the following: 
• 12/13/1988: P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant, Benjie, that a certain Aling Rosa would be arriving from Baguio City on December 14, 1988, with a large volume of marijuana. 
• P/Lt. Abello then assembled a team who proceeded to West Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City at around 4:00 in the afternoon of December 14, 1988 and deployed themselves near the Philippine National Bank (PNB) building along Rizal Avenue and the Caltex gasoline station. Dividing themselves into two groups, one group near the PNB building while the other group near the Caltex gasoline station. 
• A Victory Liner Bus 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. The informant then 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, introduced themselves as NARCOM agents and asked Aling Rosa about the contents of her bag, the latter handed it to the former. 
• 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. 
• Aruta was then brought to the NARCOM office for investigation where a Receipt of Property Seized was prepared for the confiscated marijuana leaves. 
• A Forensic Chemist, prepared a Technical Report stating that the marijuana specimen yielded positive results for marijuana, a prohibited drug. 
• Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the items, which was denied without the trial court ruling on the alleged illegality of the search and seizure and the inadmissibility in evidence of the items seized to avoid pre-judgment. The trial court continued to hear the case. 
• Aruta claimed that she had just come from Choice Theater where she watched the movie Balweg. While about to cross the road, an old woman asked her help in carrying a shoulder bag. In the middle of the road, Lt. Abello and Lt. Domingo arrested her and asked her to go with them to the NARCOM Office. 
• She disclaimed any knowledge as to the identity of the woman and averred that the old woman was nowhere to be found after she was arrested. 
• Moreover, she added that no search warrant was shown to her by the arresting officers. 
• RTC was not convinced and convicted Aruta of violating Sec. 4, Art. II of RA No. 6425.

ISSUE: WON the warrantless search and seizure was valid? No.

HELD:

• The warrantless search and seizure was not valid. 
• NARCOM agents were admittedly not armed with a warrant of arrest. To legitimize the warrantless search and seizure of Aruta’s bag, Aruta must have been validly arrested under Sec. 5 Rule 113 
• Sec. 5. Arrest without a warrrant; when lawful. – a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: 
• When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense 
• Aruta cannot be said to be commiting a crime. Neither was she about to commit nor had she just committed a crime. 
• Aruta 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. NARCOM agents would not have apprehended Aruta were it not for the furtive finger of the informant. 
• There was no legal basis for NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless search of Aruta’s bag, there being no probable cause and Aruta not having been lawfully arrested. 
• Articles seized could not be used as evidence against Aruta for these are “fruits of a poisonous tree.”
• The search made does not fall in the exceptions provided by law: 

a. Law requires that the search be incidental to a lawful arrest, in order that the search itself may likewise be considered legal. Aruta’s arrest was not lawful therefore making the search illegal. 
b. The search and seizure of Aruta’s bag would not be justified as seizure in evidence of “plain view” since NARCOM agents had to request Aruta to open the bag to ascertain its contents. 
c. There was no moving vehicle involved in this case as Aruta was apprehended several minutes after alighting from the Victory Liner bus. 
d. There was no observable manifestation that could have aroused the suspicion of the NARCOM agents as to cause them to “stop and frisk” Aruta. 
e. It also cannot be categorized under exigent and emergency circumstances. 
f. Another exception happens when the accused-appellant waives her consitutional right against search seizure. The act of Aruta in handing over her bag to the agents could not be construed as voluntary submission or an implied acquiescence to the unreasonable search. Aruta’s lack of objection to the search is not tantamount to a waiver of her constitutional rights or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search. 

• To constitute a waiver, it must: 

i. Appear that the right exists 

ii. The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such right 

iii. The person had an actual intention to relinquish the right 

• Had the NARCOM agents only applied for a search warrant, they could have secured one without too much difficulty since the person to be searched has been particularized and the thing to be seized specified and considering that they had 24 hours to do so. 
• A search may be conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of a search warrant validly issued by a judge as provided in Art. III, Sec. 2. 
• This prohibition is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures as it operates only against “unreasonable” searches and seizures. o Searches and seizures are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or a warrant of arrest. 
• Articles which are the product of unreasonable searches and seizures are inadmissible as evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule. 
• State cannot simply intrude indiscrimnately into the houses, papers, effects, and on the person. This is an impenetrable shield against unreasonable searches and seizures. 
• Exceptions (should not become unbridled licenses for law enforcement officers to trample upon the constitutionally guaranteed right of persons against unreasonable searches and seizures): 

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; 

2. Seizure of evidence in plain view, the elements of which are: 

a. a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; 

b. the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; 

c. the evidence must be immediately apparent, and d. plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search; 

3. Search of a moving vehicle; 
4. Consented warrantless search; 
5. Customs search; 
6. Stop and Frisk; and 
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances

Probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted.

• Reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged
• Existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched