PEOPLE V ARUTA

FACTS:
In the morning of 13 Dec 1988, the law enforcement officers received
information from an informant named !en"ie# that a certain Aling
$osa# wo%ld &e leaving for !ag%io Cit' on 1( Dec 1988 and wo%ld &e
&ac) in the afternoon of the same da' carr'ing with her a large vol%me
of mari"%ana* At +:3, in the evening of 1( Dec 1988, Ar%ta alighted
from a -ictor' .iner !%s carr'ing a travelling &ag even as the informant
/ointed her o%t to the law enforcement officers* 0A$C12 officers
a//roached her and introd%ced themselves as 0A$C12 agents*
3hen as)ed &' .t4 A&ello a&o%t the contents of her travelling &ag, she
gave the same to him* 3hen the' o/ened the same, the' fo%nd dried
mari"%ana leaves* Ar%ta was then &ro%ght to the 0A$C12 office for
investigation4
ISSUE: 3hether or not the cond%cted search and sei5%re is
constit%tional4
HELD: The SC r%led in favor of Ar%ta and has noted that some dr%g
traffic)ers are &eing freed d%e to technicalities4 Ar%ta cannot &e said to
&e committing a crime4 0either was she a&o%t to commit one nor had
she "%st committed a crime4 Ar%ta was merel' crossing the street and
was not acting in an' manner that wo%ld engender a reasona&le
gro%nd for the 0A$C12 agents to s%s/ect and concl%de that she was
committing a crime4 It was onl' when the informant /ointed to Ar%ta
and identified her to the agents as the carrier of the mari"%ana that she
was singled o%t as the s%s/ect4 The 0A$C12 agents wo%ld not have
a//rehended Ar%ta were it not for the f%rtive finger of the informant
&eca%se, as clearl' ill%strated &' the evidence on record, there was no
reason whatsoever for them to s%s/ect that acc%sed6a//ellant was
committing a crime, e7ce/t for the /ointing finger of the informant4 The
SC co%ld neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of the
constit%tional g%arantee against %nreasona&le search and sei5%re4
0either was there an' sem&lance of an' com/liance with the rigid
re8%irements of /ro&a&le ca%se and warrantless arrests4
Conse8%entl', there was no legal &asis for the 0A$C12 agents to
effect a warrantless search of Ar%ta9s &ag, there &eing no /ro&a&le
ca%se and the acc%sed6a//ellant not having &een lawf%ll' arrested4
Stated otherwise, the arrest &eing inci/ientl' illegal, it logicall' follows
that the s%&se8%ent search was similarl' illegal, it &eing not incidental
to a lawf%l arrest4 The constit%tional g%arantee against %nreasona&le
search and sei5%re m%st /erforce o/erate in favor of acc%sed6
a//ellant4 As s%ch, the articles sei5ed co%ld not &e %sed as evidence
against acc%sed6a//ellant for these are fr%its of a /oisoned tree# and,
therefore, m%st &e re"ected, /%rs%ant to Article III, Sec4 3:;< of the
Constit%tion4