Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
and gave Musa the P20.00 marked money. Musa went into the house and
FACTS:
Accused
came back, giving Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried marijuana.
seeks
the
reversal
of
his
conviction
for
violating
the
Ani opened and inspected it. He raised his right hand as a signal to the
other NARCOM agents, and the latter moved in and arrested Musa inside
HELD:
marked money (gave it to his wife who slipped away). T/Sgt. Belarga and
the house. Belarga frisked Musa in the living room but did not find the
Sgt. Lego went to the kitchen and found a cellophane colored white and
stripe hanging at the corner of the kitchen. They asked Musa about its
contents but failed to get a response. So they opened it and found dried
marijuana
leaves
inside.
Musa
was
then
placed
under
arrest.
Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the plastic bag and the marijuana
inside it is unreasonable, hence, inadmissible as evidence.
PEOPLE VS. MUSA [217 SCRA 597; G.,R. NO. 96177; 27 JAN 1993]
Held: Yes. It constituted unreasonable search and seizure thus it may not
Facts: A civilian informer gave the information that Mari Musa was engaged
in selling marijuana in Suterville, Zamboanga City. Sgt. Ani was ordered by
NARCOM leader T/Sgt. Belarga, to conduct a surveillance and test buy on
Musa. The civilian informer guided Ani to Musas house and gave the
description of Musa. Ani was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried
marijuana for P10.00.
The next day, a buy-bust was planned. Ani was to raise his right hand if he
successfully buys marijuana from Musa. As Ani proceeded to the house, the
seizure of the object where the incriminating nature of the object is not
his position, Belarga could see what was going on. Musa came out of the
In the case at bar, the plastic bag was not in the plain view of the police.
They arrested the accused in the living room and moved into the kitchen in
search for other evidences where they found the plastic bag. Furthermore,
the marijuana inside the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from
the plain view of said object.
Therefore, the plain view does not apply. The plastic bag was seized
illegally and cannot be presented in evidence pursuant to Article III Section
3 (2) of the Constitution.
allege the time when the marijuana was found, i.e., whether prior to, or
ISSUES:
SPO1 Badua in his deposition, was invalid. Thus, the Court affirmed the
HELD:
Cruz (J):
and a third "weeks before June 25." There was no warrant of arrest or
search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination by him of
Facts: Idel Aminnudin y Ahni was arrested on 25 June 1984, shortly after
disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 p.m., in Iloilo City. The
government, Aminnudin was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about
PC officers who were in fact waiting for him simply accosted him,
inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him
arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could
not be invoked to dispense with the obtention of the warrant. The present
were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for
witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within which they
for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Later, the
could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was
information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been
coming Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was
arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. Both were
identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information
arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motion to
they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was
dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the
probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did
nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was
was granted, and trial proceeded only against Aminnudin, who was
ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the
arresting team, had determined on his own authority that "search warrant
P20,000.00.
pointing finger of the informant. The SC could neither sanction nor tolerate
as it is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure. Neither was there any semblance of any
compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause and warrantless
arrests. Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to
effect a warrantless search of Arutas bag, there being no probable cause
and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested. Stated
otherwise, the arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the
subsequent search was similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful
arrest. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and
seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-appellant. As such, the
articles seized could not be used as evidence against accused-appellant for
these are fruits of a poisoned tree and, therefore, must be rejected,
pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution.
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
The People of the Philippines vs Mikael Malmstedt
People v Malmstedt 198 SCRA 401 6.19.91
The Swedish National with Hashish Case
F: Accused is a Swedish national arrested for carrying Hashish, a form of
marijuana during a NARCOM inspection. He was tried and found guilty in
violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. He contends that the arrest was illegal
without the search warrant.
I: WON the arrest made was illegal in the absence of a search warrant.
Facts:
Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, was found, via a
r o u t i n e N A R C O M i n s p e c t i o n a t K i l o m e t e r 1 4 , A c o p , Tub l a
y Mountai n Pro vince, car ryi ngHa shish, ad e r i v a t i v e o f
Ma ri j ua na . RTC L a Tri ni d ad fo un d hi m gu il t y fo r v
i o l a t i o n o f t h e Dangerous Drugs Act. The accused filed a petition
to the Supreme Court for the reversal of the decision arguing that the
search and the arrest made was illegal because there was no search
warrant.
Issue:
passport.
Held:
a n c o m i n g f r o m S a g a d a h a d prohibited
drugs
in
his
possession and (2) failure of the accused to immediately
present his passport.
People vs Marti
G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
MARTI, accused-appellant.
vs.
ANDRE