Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

People vs.

Facts: Suchinda Leangsiri was arrested in the NAIA in the act of bringing into the country approximately more than * kilo of heroin. In his arrest, he informed the arresting officers that the heroin is meant to deliver to three other people in Las Palmas Hotel in Manila. Immediately, the NARCOM formed a group for a follow up operation in the said Hotel. In the accuseds cooperation, he was allowed to check in to Room 504, where the others will meet him to give the drugs. Around 10 pm, Amidu two other co-appellants entered Room 504 and Leagsiri gave them the drugs, before the appellants leave the room, the NARCOM officers barged in and arrested the appellants. Amidu, told the officers that he is staying in Rm 413 and that the two others are in royal Palm Hotel. The officers then went to the room of Amidu, searching for evidence and subsequently confiscated a telephone address bearing the name of Leangsiri, other possessions and documents of Amidu were also confiscated. In the case of the two other, the police confiscated a suit case and masking tape and empty transparent bag, allegedly will be use in transporting the drugs. The appellants were charged and was convicted in conspiring to transport heroin violative of RA 6425. Hence this petition, alleging that the search is illegal being conducted not in the direct premises of the arrest. Issue: Whether the articles sought in the other room and hotel, outside the direct premises of the arrest admissible as evidence? Held: No. those article are inadmissible as evidence as it was obtained not in plan view nor within the direct premises of the arrest. The plain view doctrin applies to OBJECTS OF THE PLAIN VIEW OF AN OFFICER WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO BE IN THE POSITION TO HAVE THAT VIEW ARE SUBJECT TO SEIZURE AND MAYBE PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE. Thus, what can be admitted are evidences seized within the direct premise where the accused has an immediate control which should only be Rm. 509. In the case at bar, appellants were arrested in Room 504 of the Las Palmas Hotel. The piece of paper bearing Leangsiri's name was obtained through a

warrantless search of Room 413 of the same hotel, and found tucked within the pages of appellant Amidu's telephone and address book. Clearly, the warrantless search is illegal and the piece of paper bearing Leangsiri's name cannot be admitted as evidence against appellants. The inadmissibility of this evidence will not, however, exculpate appellants. Its exclusion does not destroy the prosecution's case against appellants. The remaining evidence still established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Note: 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. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court stated the following limitations on the application of the doctrine. What the "plain view" cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused and permits the warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the "plain view" doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges. When there is waiver of right or gives his consent A Valid waiver of right in Sec 2 art III, elements (1) (2) (3) The right to be waived is existing The person waiving it had knowledge, actual or constructive He or she has actual intention to relinquish the right.