People of the Philippines Vs Jesus Nuevas y Garcia, Reynaldo Din y Gonzaga and Fernando Inocensio

yAbadeos, 516 SCRA 463, GR 170233 (February 22, 2007)

Facts:

Police officer received information that a certain male person a man would make a delivery of
marijuanadried leaves. While stationed thereat, they saw a male person who fit the description, carrying
a plasticbag, who was Nuevas.They confronted the latter and ask. Later on, Nuevas voluntarily pointed
to the police officers a plasticbag which, when opened, contained marijuana dried leaves and bricks
wrapped in a blue cloth. Nuevasdisclosed where the two (2) other male persons would make the
delivery of marijuana weighing more orless five (5) kilos.The police officers together with Nuevas, then
proceeded the place where according to Nuevas was wherehis two (2) companions, Din and Inocencio,
could be located. From there, they saw and approached two(2) persons along the National Highway,
introducing themselves as police officers. Din was carrying a lightblue plastic bag.When asked, Din
disclosed that the bag belonged to Nuevas. Officers then took the bag and uponinspection found inside
it "marijuana packed in newspaper and wrapped therein." are violated.All of the said materials are
confiscated and the 3 are arrested. The trial court found them guilty withillegal possession of marijuana
in violation of Section 8, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended.Nuevas, by manifestation,
waived his right of appeal.

The appellate court found Fami and Cabling’s version of how appellants were apprehended to be

categorical and clear. However the other 2 filed there recourse in the Court of Appeals base on
theirallegations that they are not guilty and their constitutional rights against warrantless arrest.
However, theappellate court stated that the search in the instant case is exempted from the
requirement of a judicialwarrant as appellants themselves waived their right against unreasonable
searches and seizures.According to the appellate court, both Cabling and Fami testified that Din
voluntarily surrendered the bag.Appellants never presented evidence to rebut the same. Thus, in the
instant case, the exclusionary ruledoes not apply. Hence, the petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the arrest was valid?

Ruling:

No

The conviction or acquittal of appellants rests on the validity of the warrantless searches and seizure
madeby the police officers and the admissibility of the evidence obtained by virture thereof.Our
Constitution states that a search and seizure must be carried through or with a judicial
warrant;otherwise, such search and seizure become "unreasonable" and any evidence obtained
therefrom is