[G.R. No. 148825.

December 27, 2002]PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

appellee, vs
.
SUSAN CANTON,

appellant
.
Facts:Canton was charged for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. She
was caught in possession of metamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) without
prescription or license. Susan was bound to Saigon, Vietnam. Prior to her
flight, she passed through the metal detector and beeped.A civilian inspector
of the airport searched her and upon frisking, she felt something that
is bulging in the abdomen of Susan. They were able to recover packets that
were wrapped with packing tape.

Issue:Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure of regulated drugs,

as well as the arrest ofSusan were violative of her constitutional rights

Ruling: No, warrantless search and subsequent seizure of the regulated

drugs, as well as the arrest of SUSAN, were not violative of her constitutional
rights. What was done to Susan was a stop and frisk search.
stop and frisk situation refers to a case where a police officer approaches a
person who is acting suspiciously, for purposes of investigating possibly
criminal behavior in line withthe general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection. The search was made pursuantto routine airport
security procedure, which is allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act No.
6235
which states that
Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for ,
and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances
xxx.
This is another exemption in warrantlessarrest and seizure. After the metal
detector alarmed SUSAN consented to be frisked, whichresulted in the
discovery of packages on her body. Persons may lose the protection of the
searchand seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the
public in a manner reflecting alack of subjective expectation of privacy,
which expectation society is prepared to recognize asreasonable.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ABE VALDEZ y DELA CRUZ,
accused-appellant.

Facts:De La Cruz unlawfully cultivated seven fully grown marijuana plants

from whichdangerous drugs may be manufactured. The police officers
received a tip that the said marijuana
plants were grown by De La Cruz. They then went to De La Cruzs place and
saw 7 5 ft tall
marijuana plants. The police uprooted the plants and were then confiscated
and escheated infavor of the government. A laboratory test was made and
confirmed that the plants weremarijuana. A case was brought against
dela cruz and the marijuana plants were used as anevidence against him.

Issues:Whether or not the seizure of marijuana plants is lawfulWhether or not

the trial court erred in admitting as evidence the 7 marijuana plantsdespite
their inadmissibility being products of an illegal search

Ruling: No, the seizure of marijuana plants is unlawful. The OSG may have
contended that theseizure is lawful since it can be treated as part of the plain
view doctrine, however, the police
have declared that they have one day to obtain a warrant to search the
appellants farm. They
could have convinced the judge that there is probable cause to justify the
issuance of warrant.The doctrine of plain view cannot be applied in this case.
The following are required for the plainview doctrine to be applied:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the p
olice are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the rig
ht to be wherethey are;
and(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and(d) plain view justifie
d mere seizure of evidence without further search.
[35]
In the instant case, PO2 Balut testified that they first located the marijuana
plants beforeappellant was arrested without a warrant. Hence, there was no
valid warrantless arrest which preceded the search of appellant's premises.
The seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies onlywhere the police officer is
not
searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertentlycomes across
an incriminating object. Their discovery of Cannabis plant was not
inadvertent.
II.Yes, the trial court the trial court erred in admitting as evidence the 7
marijuana plantsdespite their inadmissibility being products of an illegal
search. The 7 marijuana plants wereobtained being products of an illegal
search.
People vs. Anthony Escordial GR 138934-35, January 16, 2002
FACTS
Escordial was convicted for robbery with rape and sentenced to death by the
Bacolod RTC.Michelle Darunday, the rape victim, did not know what the
suspect looked like because she was blindfolded atthe time the crime was
committed. She would only recognize him if she heard his voice and felt
the rough bumpson skin, as he was talking to her while he was raping
her. However, her roommate claimed that she saw thesuspect, even
though she was blindfolded, because of the light that filtered in from a
lamp post outside their room; that's why she gave a physical description to
the police officers.In the course of their investigation, the police found that
the suspect's description fit that of a worker in the CoffeeBreak Corner,
where the accused was employed. When the police officers arrived at the
cafe, they asked theowner for the accused's whereabouts. They went to
the location stated by the owner and found the accused in abasketball court.
He was then invited for questioning.The rape victim was already at the
station when the accused arrived. According to her testimony, the
accusedblushed when he saw her. He also tried talking to her, asking her if
she really knew him, but she did not respond.He was asked to take off his
shirt and she confirmed that he was indeed her assailant because of a keloid
at theback of his neck and his voice.
ISSUES
(1) Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused was lawful.
(2)
Whether the accused's
Miranda
rights were violated.
HELD
(1) NO. He was arrested while he was watching a basketball game. He was
not caught in flagrante delicto.Neither was he arrested immediately after the
consummation of the crime because he was only invitedfor questioning a
week after the incident.However, the defect was cured when he voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.(2) YES, insofar as he was
not assisted by counsel during the custodial investigation.
Nevertheless, theCourt noted that the accused did not, at any time, admit
to committing the crime, even when he claimedthat he was being tortured
by the police. Therefore, there was no uncounselled confession obtained
fromhim.

The Court also found that, although the out-of-court identification of the
accused was inadmissible as evidencesince he was not assisted by counsel
at that time, the in-court identification was definitely a valid ground for
hisconviction. In fact, it was actually the in-court identification that formed
the basis for the RTC's decision, not theout-of-court identification.
People v. Omaweng [GR 99050, 2 September 1992]
Third Division, Davide (J): 3 concur, 1 on leave
Facts:
In the morning of 12 September 1988, PC constables with the Mt. Province
PC Command put up a checkpoint at the junction of the roads, one going to
Sagada and the other to Bontoc.They stopped and checked all vehicles that
went through the checkpoint. At 9:15 a.m., theyflagged down a cream-
colored Ford Fiera (ABT-634) coming from the Bontoc Poblacion andheaded
towards Baguio. The vehicle was driven by Conway Omaweng and had no
passengers.The Constables (Layong, et.al.) asked permission to inspect
the vehicle to which Omawengacceded to. When they peered into the rear of
the vehicle, they saw a travelling bag which was partially covered by the rim
of a spare tire under the passenger seat on the right side of thevehicle. They
asked permission to see the contents of the bag to which Omaweng
consented to.When they opened the bag, they found that it contained 41
plastic packets of different sizescontaining pulverized substances. The
constable gave a packet to his team leader, who, after

sniffing the stuff concluded that it was marijuana. The Constables thereafter
boarded the vehiclesand proceeded to the Bontoc poblacion to report the
incident to the PC Headquarters. The prohibited drugs were surrendered to
the evidence custodian. The PC Forensic Chemist at CampDangwa, La
Trinidad, Benguet conducted 2 chemistry examinations of the substance
containedin the plastic packets taken from appellant and found them to be
positive for hashish or marijuana. Omaweng was indicted for the violation of
Section 4, Article II of RA 6425(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended,
in a criminal complaint filed with the MTCBontoc, Mountain Province on
12 September 1988. Upon his failure to submit counter-affidavitsdespite the
granting of an extension of time to do so, the court declared that he had
waived hisright to a preliminary investigation and, finding probable cause
against Omaweng, ordered theelevation of the case to the proper court. On
14 November 1988, the Office of the ProvincialFiscal of Mountain Province
filed an Information charging Omaweng with the violation of Section 47
Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended (Crim Case 713).
After his motion for reinvestigation was denied by the Provincial Fiscal,
Omaweng entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment on 20 June
1989. During the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented 4 witnesses.
Omaweng did not present any evidence other than portions of the
JointClarificatory Sworn Statement, dated 23 December 1988, of prosecution
witnesses JosephLayong and David Fomocod. On 21 March 1991, the trial
court promulgated its Judgmentconvicting Omaweng of the crime of
transporting prohibited drugs (Section 4, Article II of RA6425, as amended).
Omaweng appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether Omaweng was subjected to search which violates his Constitutional
right againstunreasonable searches and seizures.
Held:
Omaweng was not subjected to any search which may be stigmatized as a
violation of hisConstitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures. He willingly gave prior consentto the search and voluntarily agreed
to have it conducted on his vehicle and travelling bag. Thetestimony of the
PC Constable (Layung) was not dented on cross-examination or rebutted
byOmaweng for he chose not to testify on his own behalf. Omaweng
waived his right againstunreasonable searches and seizures when he
voluntarily submitted to a search or consents to haveit made in his person or
premises. He is precluded from later complaining thereof right to besecure
from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver
may be madeeither expressly or impliedly. Since in the course of the valid
search 41 packages of drugs werefound, it behooved the officers to seize the
same; no warrant was necessary for such seizure.