People v. Valdez | G.R. No. 129296 | September 25, 2000 | Quisumbing, J. | Topic: Article III – Section 2 |
Petitioners: People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee
Respondents:
Abe Valdez y Dela Cruz, accused-appellant
[Warrantless searches and seizures – plain view]
A police officer received a tip from an informer about the presence of a marijuana plantation, allegedly owned by
Valdez. The Chief of Police then formed a team to verify the report. He gave them specific instructions to uproot said
marijuana plants and arrest the cultivator of the same. The following day, the police team left for the site. They arrived
at the place and found Valdez alone in his nipa put. They looked around the area where Valdez had his kaingin and
saw 7 five-foot flowering marijuana plants. The police uprooted the 7 marijuana plants and arrested Valdez.
The trial court found Valdez guilty of cultivating marijuana plants in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Arguing that
that there was an unlawful search, he now appeals before the Court. The issue before the Court is W/N the search
and seizure of the marijuana plants in the present case is lawful.
And in relation to this, W/N the seized plants are
admissible in evidence against the accused.
Court held that:
1. There was an illegal search. The search was made without a search warrant. From the declaration of the
officers themselves, it is clear that they had at least 1 day to obtain a warrant to search the farm of Valdez. The
informant named Valdez and the place was pinpointed. From the information in their possession, they could have
convinced a judge that there was probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant.
2. Contrary to the position of the OSG, the plain view doctrine is not applicable.
The requisites for the doctrine to
apply are:
(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
- In this case, there was no valid warrantless arrest
that preceded the search of Valdez’s premises. PO2
Balut testified that they first located the marijuana
plants before appellant was arrested without a
warrant.
(2) The evidence was inadvertently discovered
by the police who have the right to be where they
are
- Discovery of the cannabis plants was not
inadvertent. Based on the testimony of SPO2 Tipay,
they first had to look around the area.
(3) Evidence must be immediately apparent
(4) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search
3. The plants cannot, as products of an unlawful search and seizure, be used as evidence against appellant.
FACTS:
Facts according to the appellee:
- SPO3 Tipay received a tip from an unnamed informer about the presence of a marijuana plantation, allegedly owned by Valdez.
- The prohibited plants were allegedly planted close to Valdez’s hut.
- Police Inspector Parungao, the Chief of Police of Villaverde, formed a reaction team to verify the report. He gave the team specific instructions to uproot said marijuana plants and arrest the cultivator of the same.
- The following day, the police team, accompanied by their informer, left for the site. After a 3-hour uphill trek, they arrived at the place and found Valdez alone in his nipa hut.
- They looked around the area where Valdez had his kaingin and saw seven 5 ft. high flowering plants approximately 25 meters from the hut of Valdez.
- PO3 Balut asked Valdez who owned the plants and, according to Balut, Valdez admitted that were his.
- Police uprooted the seven marijuana plants and Valdez was arrested.
Facts according to the appellant (Valdez):
- He was weeding his vegetable farm when he was called by a person he does not know.
- The unknown person then brought him to the place where marijuana plants were found, approximately 100 meters from his nipa hut.
- Five armed policemen were present. He was asked if he knew anything about the marijuana plants
- He denied. However, SPO2 Libunao poked a fist at him and told him to admit ownership of the plants. He
was so nervous and afraid that he admitted owning the marijuana.
- Police took photos of him with the marijuana plants.
The trial court found Valdez guilty of cultivating marijuana plants in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Contending
that that there was an unlawful search, he now appeals before the Court.
ISSUE:
1. W/N the search and seizure of the marijuana plants in the present case is lawful? No.
2. W/N the seized plants are admissible in evidence against the accused? No.
3. W/N the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt? (Not pertinent to Sec 2) No.
HELD:
1. There was an illegal search.
- General rule: A search and seizure must be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant
- There was no search warrant issued by a judge.
- From the declaration of the officers themselves, it is clear that they had at least 1 day to obtain a warrant to
search the farm of Valdez. From the information in their possession, they could have convinced a judge that
there was probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant.
- Informant had revealed the name of Valdez
- Place where the cannabis plants were planted was pinpointed
2. “Plain view” doctrine is not applicable.
- OSG argues that the seized marijuana plants were in plain view of the police officers. There was no search
made by the police team as the marijuana plants were grown in an unfenced lot and they were visible from
afar.
- For the doctrine to apply, the following elements must be present:
(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) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are
(3) Evidence must be immediately apparent
(4) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search
- In the case, there was no valid warrantless arrest that preceded the search of Valdez’s premises.
- PO2 Balut testified that they first located the marijuana plants before appellant was arrested without a
warrant.
- Moreover, the police team was dispatched to appellant’s kaingin precisely to search for and uproot the
prohibited plants.
- The seizure of evidence in plain view applies only where the police officer is not searching for
evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.
- Here, discovery of the cannabis plants was not inadvertent
- Based on the testimony of SPO2 Tipay, they first had to look around the area.
• Evidently, the seized marijuana plants were not “immediately apparent” and a “further search” was needed.
3. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures is the immunity of one’s person, which includes his
residence, his papers, and other possessions.
- Court cannot sustain the trial court’s conclusion that just because the marijuana plants were found in an
unfenced lot, appellant could not invoke the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
- The guarantee refers to “the right of personal security of the individual”
- To conclude otherwise would lead to the absurd logic that for a person to be immune against unreasonable
searches and seizures, he must be in his home or office, within a fenced yard or a private place.
4. The plants cannot, as products of an unlawful search and seizure, be used as evidence against appellant.
- They are fruits of the proverbial poisoned tree.
DISPOSITION: Decision promulgated by the RTC finding Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act – REVERSED and SET ASIDE
Comments
Post a Comment