PEOPLE

VS
LEANGSIRI

FACTS:

- Suchinda Leangsiri, a Thai national, was caught at the NAIA for bringing in 8.2 kgs of
heroin hidden under the false bottom of a suitcase
- He informed the authorities of a drug transaction in a hotel, which triggered the latter
to conduct a buy-bust operation
- At the hotel, Leangsiri communicated with the buyers as to the time and specific
location where they will be making the deal
- During the transaction, the authorities positioned themselves inside the washroom to
give them a full view
- After the contents of the suitcase were examined by the buyers, they took it and as
soon as they started leaving, the authorities barged out of the washroom, identified
themselves, and made the arrest
- Amidu, one of the buyers, merely said that she was staying at a different room of the
same hotel so the hotel’s owner and security officer accompanied the authorities in
searching her room
- Inside Amidu’s room, they found a piece of paper with the name of Leangsiri written
on it, tucked within the pages of Amidu’s telephone and address book, and also her
other other possessions, which were confiscated
- The other appellants told a different story, according to them, they were staying at a
different hotel but went to Amidu’s hotel to meet her
- While walking in the hotel, they were accosted by authorities, who forcibly brought
them to Leangsiri’s room and took all their possession including money and jewelry
- The trial court rendered judgment convicting them of transporting the illegal drug
- Appellants filed a motion for new trial on the ground of a newly discovered evidence
- Included in the material evidence is the testimony of a certain Julita Thach Camerino,
a Thai citizen and a prisoner convicted of the same offense
- According to her, Amidu was her fellow inmate at the city jail and also she was the
interpreter who joined the authorities during the buy-bust operation
- In addition, she denied the statements of the authorities and narrated the same story
as that of the appellants

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the pieces of paper found in Amidu’s room should be admitted into
evidence;
2. Whether or not the motion for new trial should be granted

HELD:

1. The warrantless search is illegal and the piece of paper bearing Leangsiri’s
name cannot be admitted as evidence against appellants

The Revised Rules of Court provide that (a) person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an
offense, without a search warrant.We interpreted this provision in Nolasco vs. Pao, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
The better and established rule is a strict application of the exception provided xxx that is to
absolutely limit a warrantless search of a person who is lawfully arrested to his or her person
at the time of and incident to his or her arrest and to dangerous weapons or anything which
may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. Such warrantless search obviously
cannot be made in a place other than the place of arrest.
The inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest
outside the suspects person and the premises under his immediate control admits of an
exception. The exception obtains when the Plain View Doctrine applies as explained
in People vs. Musa, in this wise:

xxx 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 and may be presented as evidence.

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.

2. The motion for new trial should be denied

Section 1, Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court grants an aggrieved party the right to move
for new trial on the ground, among others, of (n)ewly discovered evidence, which he could
not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered, and produced at the trial, and which if
presented would probably alter the result (thereof) Newly discovered evidence, in order to
warrant a new trial, must meet three requirements, viz: (1) it must have been discovered after
trial; (2) it could not have been discovered and produced at the trial despite reasonable
diligence; and (3) if presented, it would probably alter the results of the action.
In the case at bar, appellants were unable to prove that, even with the use of reasonable
diligence, they could not have obtained Camerinos testimony during the trial. On the contrary,
as correctly noted by the trial court, Camerino was identified in open court by appellant Bhola
on July 26, 1993.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that Camerinos prospective testimony would acquit
appellants. Firstly, her affidavit embodies a narration of events almost identical to that
presented by appellants. As has been discussed earlier, the defense version of what occurred
on the evening of March 31, 1993 is incredible and difficult to believe. Secondly, Camerinos
claim that she was a member of the team that arrested appellants is belied by the testimony
of prosecution witness Samala on rebuttal