PEOPLE VS ARUTA
Facts: On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped
off by his informant that a certain Aling Rosa will
be arriving from Baguio City with a large volume of
marijuana and assembled a team. The next day, at
the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the
bus coming from Baguio, when the informer pointed
out who Aling Rosa was, the team approached her
and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents.
When Abello asked aling Rosa about the contents
of her bag, the latter handed it out to the police.
They found dried marijuana leaves packed in a
plastic bag marked cash katutak.
Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed
a demurrer to evidence alleging the illegality of
the search and seizure of the items. In her
testimony, the accused claimed that she had just
come from Choice theatre where she watched a
movie Balweg. While about to cross the road an
old woman asked her for help in carrying a shoulder
bag, when she was later on arrested by the police.
She has no knowledge of the identity of the old
woman and the woman was nowhere to be found.
Also, no search warrant was presented.
The trial court convicted the accused in violation of
the dangerous drugs of 1972
Issue: Whether or Not the
police correctly searched and seized the drugs from
the accused.
Held: The following cases are specifically
provided or allowed by law:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements
of which are: (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 had the right to be where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
(d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search;
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by
the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility
reduces expectation of privacy especially when its
transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly
reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause
that the occupant committed a criminalactivity;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk;
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
The essential requisite of probable cause must still
be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure
can be lawfully conducted.
The accused cannot be said to be committing a
crime, she was merely crossing the street and was
not acting suspiciously for the Narcom agents to
conclude that she was committing a crime. There
was no legal basis toeffect a warrantless arrest of
the accuseds bag, there was no probable cause and
the accused was not lawfully arrested.
The police had more than 24 hours to procure
a search warrant and they did not do so. The seized
marijuana was illegal and inadmissible evidence.
RULE 113, RULES OF COURT
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A
peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and
he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and
(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 is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above,
the person arrested without a warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or
jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance
with section 7 of Rule 112.
RULE 126, RULES OF COURT
Section 2. Court
where application for search warrant shall be filed.
Anapplication for search warrant shall be filed
with the following:
a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a
crime was committed.
b) For compelling reasons stated in the application,
any court within the judicial region where the crime
was committed if the place of the commission of the
crime is known, or any court within the judicial
region where the warrant shall be enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already been
filed, the application shall only be made in the court
where the criminal action is pending.
Section 7. Right to break door or window
to effect search. The officer, if refused admittance
to the place of directed search after giving notice of
his purpose and authority, may break open any
outer or inner door or window of a house or any part
of a house or anything therein to execute the
warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully
aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.
Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory
thereof to court; return and proceedings thereon.
(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property
seized to the judge who issued the warrant,
together with a true inventory thereof duly verified
under oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of
the search warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain
if the return has been made, and if none, shall
summon the person to whom the warrant was
issued and require him to explain why no return was
made. If the return has been made, the judge shall
ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been
complained with and shall require that the property
seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it
that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed
and kept by thecustodian of the log book
on search warrants who shall enter therein the date
of the return, the result, and other actions of the
judge.
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt
of court.