Warrrantless Searches

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 99050. September 2, 1992.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONWAY B. OMAWENG, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joel C. Obar for Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Accused Conway B. Omaweng was originally indicted for the violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic
Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, in a criminal complaint
filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Bontoc, Mountain Province on 12 September 1988. 1 Upon his
failure to submit counter-affidavits despite the granting of an extension of time to do so, the court declared
that he had waived his right to a preliminary investigation and, finding probable cause against the
accused, ordered the elevation of the case to the proper court. 2

On 14 November 1988, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Mountain Province filed an Information
charging the accused with the violation of Section 47 Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended. The accusatory portion thereof reads:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"That on or about September 12, 1988, at Dantay, Bontoc, Mountain Province, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously dispatch in transit or transport in a Ford Fiera, owned and driven by
him, 10 1/4 kilos of processed marijuana in powder form contained in al plastic bags of different sizes
which were placed in a travelling bag destained (sic) and intended for delivery, disposition and sale in
Sagada, Mountain Province, with full knowledge that said processed marijuana is (sic) prohibited drug or
from which (sic) prohibited drug maybe manufactured.

CONTRARY TO LAW." 3

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 713.

After his motion for reinvestigation was denied by the Provincial Fiscal, 4 the accused entered a plea of
not guilty during his arraignment on 20 June 1989.

During the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented four (4) witnesses. The accused did not present
any evidence other than portions of the Joint Clarificatory Sworn Statement, dated 23 December 1988, of
prosecution witnesses Joseph Layong and David Fomocod.

On 21 March 1991, the trial court promulgated its Judgment 5 convicting the accused of the crime of
transporting prohibited drugs penalized under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered imposing upon the accused herein the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Five Thousand Pesos.

Pursuant to Sec. 20, Art. IV of the aforecited special law, the drugs subject of the crime are ordered
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government. Accordingly, it is further directed that such drugs so
confiscated and forfeited be destroyed without delay per existing rules and regulations on the matter.
Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED." 6

Hence, this appeal.

In the Appellant’s Brief, Accused imputes upon the trial court the commission of the following errors.

"I

. . . IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS

GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II
 G.R. No. L-95630 June 18, 1992
SPOUSES LEOPOLDO and MA. LUISA VEROY, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. WILLIAM L. LAYAGUE, Presiding Judge, Branch XIV, Regional Trial Court at Davao
City; and BRIG. GEN. PANTALEON DUMLAO, Commanding General, PC-Criminal Investigation
Service, respondents.

Facts: On April 12, 1990, Capt. Reynaldo Obrero of the Talomo Patrol Station, PC/INP, acting upon a
directive issued by Metrodiscom Commander Col. Franco Calida, raided the house of herein petitioners in
Davao City on information that the said residence was being used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. They
were able to enter the yard with the help of the caretakers but did not enter the house since the owner was
not present and they did not have a search warrant.The following day, Capt. Obrero and Major Macasaet
conducted the search pursuant to the authority granted by petitioner Ma. Luisa Veroy. They recovered a
.45 cal. handgun with a magazine, a bag etc. The spouse Veroy were held liable for Violation of
Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Furtherance of
Rebellion).

Issues: Assuming the validity of Presidential Decree No. 1866 the respondent judge gravely abused his
discretion in admitting in evidence certain articles which were clearly inadmissible for being violative of
the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Held: Yes.The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution).
However, the rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute one.
Among the recognized exceptions thereto are: (1) a search incidental to an arrest; (2) a search of a moving
vehicle; and (3) seizure of evidence in plain view (People v. Lo Ho Wing, G.R. No. 88017, January 21,
1991 [193 SCRA 122]).None of these exceptions pertains to the case at bar. The reason for searching the
house of herein petitioners is that it was reportedly being used as a hideout and recruitment center for
rebel soldiers. While Capt. Obrero was able to enter the compound, he did not enter the house because he
did not have a search warrant and the owners were not present. This shows that he himself recognized the
need for a search warrant, hence, he did not persist in entering the house but rather contacted the Veroys
to seek permission to enter the same. Permission was indeed granted by Ma. Luisa Veroy to enter the
house but only to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. Under the circumstances it is undeniable that
the police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant but did not.

Undeniably, the offense of illegal possession of firearms is malumprohibitum but it does not follow that
the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita but the subjects of
this kind of offense may not be summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. A search warrant is
still necessary. Hence, the rule having been violated and no exception being applicable, the articles seized
were confiscated illegally and are therefore protected by the exclusionary principle. They cannot be used
as evidence against the petitioners in the criminal action against them for illegal possession of firearms.
(Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 689-690 [1986]). Besides, assuming that there was indeed a search
warrant, still in mala prohibita, while there is no need of criminal intent, there must be knowledge that the
same existed. Without the knowledge or voluntariness there is no crime.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition as granted and the criminal case against the petitioners for
illegal possession of firearms is DISMISSED.
People vs. Damaso [GR 93516, 12 August 1992]
First Division, Medialdea (J): 3 concur

Facts: On 18 June 1988, Lt. Candido Quijardo, a Philippine Constabulary officer connected with the
152nd PC Company at Lingayen, Pangasinan, and some companions were sent to verify the presence of
CPP/NPA members in Barangay Catacdang, Arellano-Bani, Dagupan City. In said

place, the group apprehended Gregorio Flameniano, Berlina Aritumba, Revelina Gamboa and
Deogracias Mayaoa. When interrogated, the persons apprehended revealed that there was an
underground safehouse at Gracia Village in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. After coordinating with the
Station Commander of Urdaneta, the group proceeded to the house in Gracia Village. They
found subversive documents, a radio, a 1 x 7 caliber .45 firearm and other items. After the raid,
the group proceeded to Bonuan, Dagupan City, and put under surveillance the rented apartment
of Rosemarie Aritumba, sister of Berlina Aritumba whom they earlier arrested. They interviewed
Luzviminda Morados, a visitor of Rosemarie Aritumba. She stated that she worked with Bernie
Mendoza/Basilio Damaso. She guided the group to the house rented by Damaso(@Mendoza).
When they reached the house, the group found that it had already vacated by the occupants.
Since Morados was hesitant to give the new address of Damaso (@Mendoza), the group looked
for the Barangay Captain of the place and requested him to point out the new house rented by
Damaso (@Mendoza). The group again required Morados to go with them. When they reached
the house, the group saw Luz Tanciangco outside. They told her that they already knew that she
was a member of the NPA in the area. At first, she denied it, but when she saw Morados she
requested the group to go inside the house. Upon entering the house, the group, as well as the
Barangay Captain, saw radio sets, pamphlets entitled “Ang Bayan,” xerox copiers and a
computer machine. They also found persons who were companions of Luz Tanciangco (namely,
Teresita Calosa, Ricardo Calosa, Marites Calosa, Eric Tanciangco and Luzviminda Morados).
The group requested the persons in the house to allow them to look around. When Luz
Tanciangco opened one of the rooms, they saw books used for subversive orientation, one M-14
rifle, bullets and ammunitions, Kenwood radio, artificial beard, maps of the Philippines,
Zambales, Mindoro and Laguna and other items. They confiscated the articles and brought them
to their headquarters for final inventory. They likewise brought the persons found in the house to
the headquarters for investigation. Said persons revealed that Damaso (@Mendoza) was the
lessee of the house and owned the items confiscated therefrom. Thus, Basilio Damaso, was
originally charged in an information filed before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City with
violation of Presidential Decree 1866 in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the
crime of subversion, together with Luzviminda Morados y Galang @ Ka Mel, Teresita Calosa y
Macabangon @ Ka Tessie, Ricardo Calosa y Perez @ Ka Ric, Marites Calosa y Evangelista @
Ka Tess, Eric Tanciangco y Capira @ Ka Ric and Luz Tanciangco y Pencial @ Ka Luz. Such
information was later amended to exclude all other persons except Damaso from the criminal
charge. Upon arraignment, Damaso pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial on the merits
ensued. The prosecution rested its case and offered its exhibits for admission. The defense
counsel interposed his objections to the admissibility of the prosecution’s evidence on grounds of
its being hearsay, immaterial or irrelevant and illegal for lack of a search warrant; and thereafter,
manifested that he was not presenting any evidence for the accused. On 17 January 1990, the
trial court rendered its decision, finding Damaso guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing the
latter to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the costs of the proceedings. Damaso
appealed.

Issue: Whether there was waiver on the part of Damaso to allow the warrantless search of his
house.

Held: Damaso was singled out as the sole violator of PD 1866, in furtherance of, or incident to,
or in connection with the crime of subversion. There is no substantial and credible evidence to
establish the fact that the appellant is allegedly the same person as the lessee of the house where
the M-14 rifle and other subversive items were found or the owner of the said items. Even
assuming for the sake of argument that Damaso is the lessee of the house, the case against him
still will not prosper, the reason being that the law enforcers failed to comply with the
requirements of a valid search and seizure proceedings. The constitutional immunity from
unreasonable searches and seizures, being a personal one cannot he waived by anyone except the
person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her . The
records show that Damaso was not in his house at that time Luz Tanciangco and Luz Morados,
his alleged helper, allowed the authorities to enter it. There is no evidence that would establish
the fact that Luz Morados was indeed Damaso’s helper or if it was true that she was his helper,
that Damaso had given her authority to open his house in his absence. The prosecution likewise
failed to show if Luz Tanciangco has such an authority. Without this evidence, the authorities’
intrusion into Damaso’s dwelling cannot be given any color of legality. While the power to
search and seize is necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced
without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is
of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government. As a
consequence, the search conducted by the authorities was illegal. It would have been different if
the situation here demanded urgency which could have prompted the authorities to dispense with
a search warrant. But the record is silent on this point. The fact that they came to Damaso’s
house at nighttime, does not grant them the license to go inside his house.
People v. Kalubiran [GR 84079, 6 May 1991]
First Division, Cruz (J): 4 concur

Facts: Nestor Kalubiran was arrested on 12 July 1985, in Dumaguete City, by Narcotics
Command (NARCOM) elements. His arrest was the result of a “buy-bust” operation in which
Pat. Leon Quindo acted as the buyer while the other team members lay in wait to arrest
Kalubiran at the pre-arranged signal. Quindo approached the accused-appellant, who was with a
group of friends in front of the Gamo Memorial Clinic, and asked if he could “score,” the jargon
for buying marijuana. Kalubiran immediately produced two sticks of marijuana, for which
Quindo paid him a previously marked P5.00 bill. Quindo then gave the signal and Cpl. Levi
Dorado approached and arrested Kalubiran. Dorado frisked the accused-appellant. He recovered
the marked money and found 17 more sticks of marijuana on Kalubiran’s person. The other team
members, namely M/Sgt. Ranulfo Villamor and Sgt. Ruben Laddaran, came later in a jeep,
where they boarded Kalubiran to take him to the police station. The 19 sticks of marijuana were
marked and then taken to the PC Crime Laboratory, where they were analyzed, with positive
results. Kalubiran contended however that one Quindo approached and frisk him on the same
night, and found nothing on him. However, he was called back by one Villamor, who told him at
gun point to board the jeep and taken to PC headquarters, then to the police station. He was
released the following day with the help of a lawyer. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
Dumaguete City found Kalubiran guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus
a P20,000 fine. Kalubiran appealed.

Issue: Whether Kalubiran should be made to answer for the 19 sticks of marijuana found in his
possession during his arrest.

Held: Kalubiran was arrested in flagrante delicto as a result of the entrapment and so came under
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, authorizing a warrantless arrest of any person actually
committing a crime. The search was made as an incident of a lawful arrest and so was also
lawful under Section 12 of Rule 116. In addition to the Rules, there is abundant jurisprudence
justifying warrantless searches and seizures under the conditions established in the case.
However, Kalubiran was accused only of selling the two sticks of marijuana under Section 4 of
the Dangerous Drugs Act when he should also have been charged with possession of the 17 other
sticks found on his person at the time of his arrest. It is unfortunate that he cannot be held to
answer for the second offense because he has not been impleaded in a separate information for
violation of Section 8 of the said law.
Espano vs. Court of Appeals [GR 120431, 1 April 1998]
Third Division, Romero (J): 3 concur

Facts: On 14 July 1991, at about 12:30 a.m., Pat. Romeo Pagilagan and other police officers,
namely, Pat. Wilfredo Aquilino, Simplicio Rivera, and Erlindo Lumboy of the Western Police
District (WPD), Narcotics Division went to Zamora and Pandacan Streets, Manila to confirm
reports of drug pushing in the area. They saw Rodolfo Espano selling “something” to another
person. After the alleged buyer left, they approached Espano, identified themselves as
policemen, and frisked him. The search yielded two plastic cellophane tea bags of marijuana .
When asked if he had more marijuana, he replied that there was more in his house. The
policemen went to his residence where they found ten more cellophane tea bags of marijuana.
Espano was brought to the police headquarters where he was charged with possession of
prohibited drugs. On 24 July 1991, Espano posted bail and the trial court issued his order of
release on 29 July 1991. On 14 August 1992, the trial court rendered a decision, convicting
Espano of the crime charged. Espano appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The
appellate court, however, on 15 January 1995 affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto.
Espano filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the search of Espano’s home after his arrest does not violate against his right
against unreasonable search and seizure.

Held: Espano’s arrest falls squarely under Rule 113 Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court. He was
caught in flagranti as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers on the basis of
information received regarding the illegal trade of drugs within the area of Zamora and Pandacan
Streets, Manila. The police officer saw Espano handing over something to an alleged buyer.
After the buyer left, they searched him and discovered two cellophanes of marijuana. His arrest
was, therefore, lawful and the two cellophane bags of marijuana seized were admissible in
evidence, being the fruits of the crime. As for the 10 cellophane bags of marijuana found at
Espano’s residence, however, the same inadmissible in evidence. The articles seized from
Espano during his arrest were valid under the doctrine of search made incidental to a lawful
arrest. The warrantless search made in his house, however, which yielded ten cellophane bags of
marijuana became unlawful since the police officers were not armed with a search warrant at the
time. Moreover, it was beyond the reach and control of Espano. The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purposes shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” An
exception to the said rule is a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest for dangerous
weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. It may extend
beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his
immediate control. Herein, the ten cellophane bags of marijuana seized at petitioner’s house after
his arrest at Pandacan and Zamora Streets do not fall under the said exceptions.
People vs. Compacion [GR 124442, 20 July 2001]
First Division, Kapunan (J): 4 concur

Facts: Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a police informant that Armando Compacio y
Surposa was growing and cultivating marijuana plants, SPO1 Gilbert L. Linda and SPO2 Basilio
Sarong of the 6th Narcotic Regional Field Unit of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) of the
Bacolod City Detachment conducted a surveillance of the residence of Compacion who was then
the barangay captain of barangay Bagonbon, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental on 9 July 1995.
During the said surveillance, they saw 2 tall plants in the backyard of Compacion which they
suspected to be marijuana plants. SPO1 Linda and SPO2 Sarong reported the result of their
surveillance to SPO4 Ranulfo T. Villamor, Jr., Chief of NARCOM, Bacolod City, who
immediately formed a team composed of the members of the Intelligence Division Provincial
Command, the Criminal Investigation Command and the Special Action Force. Two members of
the media, one from DYWF Radio and another from DYRL Radio, were also included in the
composite team. On 12 July 1995, the team applied for a search warrant with the office of
Executive Judge Bernardo Ponferrada in Bacolod City. However, Judge Ponferrada informed
them that he did not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The team then left Bacolod City
for San Carlos City. They arrived there around 6:30 p.m., then went to the house of Executive
Judge Roberto S. Javellana to secure a search warrant. They were not able to do so because it
was nighttime and office hours were obviously over. They were told by the judge to go back in
the morning. Nonetheless, the team proceeded to barangay Bagonbon and arrived at the
residence of Compacion in the early morning of 13 July 1995. SPO4 Villamor knocked at the
gate and called out for Compacion. What happened thereafter is subject to conflicting accounts.
The prosecution contends that Compacion opened the gate and permitted them to come in. He
was immediately asked by SPO4 Villamor about the suspected marijuana plants and he admitted
that he planted and cultivated the same for the use of his wife who was suffering from migraine.
SPO4 Villamor then told him that he would be charged for violation of Section 9 of RA 6425
and informed him of his constitutional rights. The operatives then uprooted the suspected
marijuana plants. SPO1 Linda conducted an initial field test of the plants by using the Narcotics
Drug Identification Kit. The test yielded a positive result. On 15 July 1995, the plants were
turned over to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, Bacolod City Police
Command, particularly to Senior Inspector Reah Abastillas Villavicencio. Senior Inspector
Villavicencio weighed and measured the plants, one was 125 inches and weighed 700 grams
while the other was 130 inches and weighed 900 grams. Three (3) qualitative examinations were
conducted, namely: the microscopic test, the chemical test, and the thin layer chromatographic
test. All yielded positive results. On his part, Compacion maintains that around 1:30 a.m. on 13
July 1995 while he and his family were sleeping, he heard somebody knocking outside his house.
He went down bringing with him a flashlight. After he opened the gate, 4 persons who he
thought were members of the military, entered the premises then went inside the house. It was
dark so he could not count the others who entered the house as the same was lit only by a
kerosene lamp. One of the four men told him to sit in the living room. Some of the men went
upstairs while the others went around the house. None of them asked for his permission to search
his house and the premises. After about 20 minutes of searching, the men called him outside and
brought him to the backyard. One of the military men said: “Captain, you have a (sic) marijuana
here at your backyard” to which Compacion replied: “I do not know that they were (sic)
marijuana plants but what I know is that they are medicinal plants for my wife” who was
suffering from migraine. After he was informed that the plants in his backyard were marijuana,
the men took pictures of him and themselves. Thereafter, he was brought inside the house where
he and the military men spent the night. At around 10:00 a.m., they brought him with them to the
city hall. Compacion saw that one of the 2 service vehicles they brought was fully loaded with
plants. He was later told by the military men that said plants were marijuana. Upon arrival at the
city hall, the men met with the mayor and then unloaded the alleged marijuana plants. A picture
of him together with the arresting team was taken with the alleged marijuana as back drop. Soon
thereafter, he was taken to Hda. Socorro at the SAF Headquarters. A criminal complaint for
violation of Section 9 of RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659 was filed against Compacion. On 2
January 1996, the trial court convicted Compacion of the crime charged, and sentenced him to
reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

Issue: Whether Compacion’s right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated.

Held: Sections 2 and 3 [2], Article III of the 1987 Constitution are safeguards against reckless,
malicious and unreasonable invasion of privacy and liberty. A search and seizure, therefore, must
be carried out through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure becomes
“unreasonable” within the meaning of the constitutional provision. Evidence secured thereby,
i.e., the “fruits” of the search and seizure, will be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.” The requirement that a warrant must be obtained from the proper judicial authority
prior to the conduct of a search and seizure is, however, not absolute. There are several instances
when the law recognizes exceptions, such as when the owner of the premises consents or
voluntarily submits to a search; when the owner of the premises waives his right against such
incursion; when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest; when it is made on vessels and aircraft
for violation of customs laws; when it is made on automobiles for the purpose of preventing
violations of smuggling or immigration laws; when it involves prohibited articles in plain view;
when it involves a “stop and frisk” situation; when the search is under exigent and emergency
circumstances; or in cases of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of
fire, sanitary and building regulations. In these instances, a search may be validly made even
without a warrant. Herein, the search and seizure conducted by the composite team in the house
of accused-appellant was not authorized by a search warrant, It does not appear either that the
situation falls under any of the above mentioned cases. Consequently, Compacion’s right against
unreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated. As a general rule, objects in the “plain
view” of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure
without a warrant. It is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence
against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Thus,
the following elements must be present before the doctrine may be applied: (a) a prior valid
intention 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
have the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d)
“plain view” justified were seizure of evidence without further search. Here, there was no valid
warrantless arrest. They forced their way into Compacion’s premises without the latter’s consent.
It is undisputed that the NARCOM agents conducted a surveillance of the residence of
Compacion on 9 July 1995 on the suspicion that he was growing and cultivating marijuana when
they allegedly came in “plain view” of the marijuana plants. When the agents entered his
premises on 13 July 1995, their intention was to seize the evidence against him. In fact, they
initially wanted to secure a search warrant but could not simply wait for one to be issued. The
NARCOM agents, therefore, did not come across the marijuana plants inadvertently when they
conducted a surveillance and barged into Compacion’s residence. As held in People v. Musa, the
“plain view” doctrine may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures
nor to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant’s guilt. The
“plain view” doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence
against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Hence,
Compacion is acquitted of the crime to which he was charged.

People vs. Valdez [GR 129296, 25 September 2000]

En Banc, Quisumbing (J): 13 concur, 1 on leave

Facts: At around 10:15 a.m. of 24 September 1996, SPO3 Marcelo Tipay, a member of the
police force of Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya, received a tip from an unnamed informer about the
presence of a marijuana plantation, allegedly owned by Abe Valdez y Dela Cruz at Sitio Bulan,
Ibung, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya. The prohibited plants were allegedly planted close to
Valdez’s hut. Police Inspector Alejandro R. Parungao, Chief of Police of Villaverde, Nueva
Vizcaya then formed a reaction team from his operatives to verify the report. The team was
composed of SPO3 Marcelo M. Tipay, SPO2 Noel V. Libunao, SPO2 Pedro S. Morales, SPO1
Romulo G. Tobias and PO2 Alfelmer I. Balut. Inspector Parungao gave them specific
instructions to “uproot said marijuana plants and arrest the cultivator of same.” At approximately
5:00 a.m. the following day, said police team, accompanied by their informer, left for the site
where the marijuana plants were allegedly being grown. After a three-hour, uphill trek from the
nearest barangay road, the police operatives arrived at the place pinpointed by their informant.
The police found Valdez alone in his nipa hut. They, then, proceeded to look around the area
where Valdez had his kaingin and saw 7 five-foot high, flowering marijuana plants in two rows,
approximately 25 meters from Valdez’s hut. PO2 Balut asked Valdez who owned the prohibited
plants and, according to Balut, the latter admitted that they were his. The police uprooted the 7
marijuana plants, which weighed 2.194 kilograms. The police took photos of Valdez standing
beside the cannabis plants. Valdez was then arrested. One of the plants, weighing 1.090
kilograms, was sent to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya for analysis. Inspector Prevy Fabros Luwis, the Crime Laboratory forensic analyst,
testified that upon microscopic examination of said plant, she found cystolitic hairs containing
calcium carbonate, a positive indication for marijuana. She next conducted a chemical
examination, the results of which confirmed her initial impressions. Valdez alleged otherwise.
He claims that at around 10:00 a.m., 25 September 1996, he was weeding his vegetable farm in
Sitio Bulan when he was called by a person whose identity he does not know. He was asked to
go with the latter to “see something.” This unknown person then brought Valdez to the place
where the marijuana plants were found, approximately 100 meters away from his nipa hut. 5
armed policemen were present and they made him stand in front of the hemp plants. He was then
asked if he knew anything about the marijuana growing there. When he denied any knowledge
thereof, SPO2 Libunao poked a fist at him and told him to admit ownership of the plants. Valdez
was so nervous and afraid that he admitted owning the marijuana. The police then took a photo
of him standing in front of one of the marijuana plants. He was then made to uproot 5 of the
cannabis plants, and bring them to his hut, where another photo was taken of him standing next
to a bundle of uprooted marijuana plants. The police team then brought him to the police station
at Villaverde. On the way, a certain Kiko Pascua, a barangay peace officer of Barangay Sawmill,
accompanied the police officers. Pascua, who bore a grudge against him, because of his refusal
to participate in the former’s illegal logging activities, threatened him to admit owning the
marijuana, otherwise be would “be put in a bad situation.” At the police headquarters, Valdez
reiterated that he knew nothing about the marijuana plants seized by the police. Still, on 26
September 1996, Valdez was charged for the cultivation and culture of the 7 fully grown
marijuana plants. On 15 November 1996, Valdez was arraigned and, with assistance of counsel,
pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial on the merits then ensued. On 18 February 1997, the
Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27, in Criminal Case 3105, found
Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 9 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972 (RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659), and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death by
lethal injection. Hence, the automatic review by the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the seizure of the marijuana plants was made pursuant to warrantless search and
seizure, based on the “plain view” doctrine.

Held: The Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure must be carried on
the strength of a judicial warrant. Otherwise, the search and seizure is deemed “unreasonable.”
Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for
being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded. Such evidence shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. Herein, there was no search warrant
issued by a judge after personal determination of the existence of probable cause. From the
declarations of the police officers themselves, it is clear that they had at least 1 day to obtain a
warrant to search Valdez’s farm. Their informant had revealed his name to them. The place
where the cannabis plants were planted 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. But they did not. Instead, they uprooted the plants and apprehended the
accused on the excuse that the trip was a good six hours and inconvenient to them. We need not
underscore that the protection against illegal search and seizure is constitutionally mandated and
only under specific instances are searches allowed without warrants. The mantle of protection
extended by the Bill of Rights covers both innocent and guilty alike against any form of high-
handedness of law enforcers, regardless of the praiseworthiness of their intentions. The Court
finds no reason to subscribe to Solicitor General’s contention that it should apply the “plain
view” doctrine. For the doctrine to apply, the following elements must be present: (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
have the right to be where they are; and (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d)
plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. Herein, the police officers
first located the marijuana plants before Valdez was arrested without a warrant. Hence, there was
no valid warrantless arrest which preceded the search of Valdez’s premises. The police team was
dispatched to Valdez’s kaingin precisely to search for and uproot the prohibited flora. 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. Clearly,
their discovery of the cannabis plants was not inadvertent. Also, upon arriving at the area, they
first had to “look around the area” before they could spot the illegal plants. Patently, the seized
marijuana plants were not “immediately apparent” and a “further search” was needed. In sum,
the marijuana plants in question were not in “plain view” or “open to eye and hand.” The “plain
view” doctrine, thus, cannot be made to apply.