WHEN SEARCH IS NOT VALID
Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime. Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime. Accused-appellant was merely crossing the street and was not acting in any manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime. It was only when the informant pointed to accused-appellant and identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was singled out as the suspect. The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended accused-appellant were it not for the furtive finger of the informant because, as clearly illustrated by the evidence on record, there was no reason whatsoever for them to suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime, except for the pointing finger of the informant. This the Court 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 accused-appellant’s 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. (People v. Menguin)
WHEN VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION
TO SEARCH IS INAPPLICABLE
Aside from the inapplicability of the abovecited case, the act of herein accused-appellant in handing over her bag to the NARCOM agents could not be construed as voluntary submission or an implied acquiescence to the unreasonable search. The instant case is similar to People v. Encinada. (People v. Menguin)
WHEN SEARCH IS NOT
ALLOWED AFTER
AN ARREST IS MADE
In the case of People v. Lua, this Court held:
“As regards the brick of marijuana found inside the appellant’s house, the trial court correctly ignored it apparently in view of its inadmissibility. While initially the arrest as well as the body search was lawful, the warrantless search made inside the appellant’s house became unlawful since the police operatives were not armed with a search warrant. Such search cannot fall under “search made incidental to a lawful arrest,” the same being limited to body search and to that point within reach or control of the person arrested, or that which may furnish him with the means of committing violence or of escaping. In the case at bar, appellant was admittedly outside his house when he was arrested. Hence, it can hardly be said that the inner portion of his house was within his reach or control.
(Espano v. C.A.; GR 120431, April 1, ’98)
MEANING OF “TO TRANSPORT”
IN DRUG CASES
In People vs. Lo Ho Wing, the Court defined the term “transport”, as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act to mean “to carry or convey from one place to another” , the operative words being “to carry or to convey”. The fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to support a finding that the act of transporting was committed. It is immaterial whether or not the place of destination was reached. (People v. Latura)
WHEN POLICE OFFICERS INTENTIONALLY PEEPED THRU A WINDOW THEN WENT INSIDE AND ARRESTED THOSE INSIDE WHO ARE PACKING MARIJUANA. THE SAME IS ILLEGAL
The police officers intentionally peeped first through the window before they saw and ascertained the activities of accused-appellants inside the room. In like manner, the search cannot be categorized as a search of a moving vehicle, a consented warrantless search, a customs search, or a stop and frisk; it cannot even fall under exigent and emergency circumstances, for the evidence at hand is bereft of any such showing.
On the contrary, it indicates that the apprehending officers should have conducted first a surveillance considering that the identities and address of the suspected culprits were already ascertained. After conducting the surveillance and determining the existence of probable cause for arresting accused-appellants, they should have secured a search warrant prior to effecting a valid arrest and seizure. The arrest being illegal ab initio, the accompanying search was likewise illegal. Every evidence thus obtained during the illegal search cannot be used against accused-appellants; hence, their acquittal must follow in faithful obeisance to the fundamental law. (PP -vs- ZENAIDA BOLASA Y NAKOBOAN, ET AL., G.R. No. 125754, Dec. 22, 1999)
SEARCH AND SEIZURE WITHOUT THE REQUISITE JUDICIAL WARRANT IS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO
As a general rule, the procurement of a search warrant is required before law enforcer may validly search or seize the person, house, papers or effects of any individual. In People v. Valdez, the court ruled that search and seizure conducted without the requisite judicial warrant is illegal and void ab initio.
x x x
“Lawmen cannot be allowed to violate the very law they are expected to enforce.” The Court is not unmindful of the difficulties of law enforcement agencies in suppressing the illegal traffic of dangerous drugs. However, quick solutions of crimes and apprehension of malefactors do not justify a callous disregard of the Bill of Rights”. We need not underscore that the protection against illegal search and seizures is constitutionally mandated and only under specific instances are seizures allowed without warrants.
In this case, the prosecution’s evidence clearly established that the police conducted a search of accused’s backyard garden without warrant; they had sufficient time to obtain a search warrant; they failed to secure one. There was no showing of urgency or necessity for the warrantless search, or the immediate seizure of the marijuana plants. (People vs. Alberto Pasudag)
JURISPRUDENCE:
In People vs. Lo Ho Wing, the Court defined the term “transport”, as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act to mean “to carry or convey from one place to another”, the operative words being “to carry or to convey”. The fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to support a finding that the act of transporting was committed. It is immaterial whether or not the place of destination was reached. (People v. Latura)
TRENDS AND ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
HAND-OUT MATERIALS
(DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT-R.A. 9165)
Buy-Bust Operation, a form of entrapment; “Decoy Solicitation”
A police officer’s act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or what is known as a “decoy solicitation” is not prohibited by law and does not render invalid the buy-bust operations. The safe of contraband is a kind of offense habitually committed, and the solicitation simply furnishes evidence of the criminal’s course of conduct in People v. Sta. Maria, the Court clarified that a “decoy solicitation” is not tantamount to inducement or instigation. (People v. Botanes, G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008)
Method of Buy-Bust Operation
There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. Xxx As to the absence of a pre-arranged signal, same is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution. The employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. (People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008)
Absence of a Prior Surveillance or Test Buy
Settled is the rule that prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation especially so if the buy-bust learn is accompanied by the informant. The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need of prior surveillance.
The absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. Furthermore, if a police operation requires immediate implementation, time is of the essence and only hasty preparations are sometimes possible. What is important is whether the speed of preparation compromised the rights of the accused. (Norgie Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 164580, Feb. 6, 2009)
Presumption of Regularity
It is settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this case, no evidence was adduced showing any irregularity in any material aspect of the conduct of the buy-bust operation. Neither was there any proof that the prosecution witnesses who were members of the buy-bust operation team, particularly those whose testimonies were in question, were impelled by any ill-feeling or improper motive against appellants which would raise a doubt about their credibility. (People v. Darisan, et.al., G.R. No. 176151, Jan. 30, 2009; People v. Llamado, G.R. No. 185278, March 13, 2009)
The “Objective Test”
In determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operation, the “objective test,” as laid down in People v. Doria, is utilized. It has been held that it is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation—from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal subject of sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. (People v. Ong, G.R. No. 175940, Feb. 6, 2008)
