DABAO, ALEXA

Article III. Section 2. Warrantless searches and seizures.

People v. Rodriguez - 232 SCRA 227 [1994] (GR 79965)
FACTS:
Patrolmen Gonzales and Bongalos searched Abrera and Rodriguez without any warrant, due to alleged information
from an unidentified telephone caller that someone was selling marijuana inside the Wonder Dog Circus. As Abrera
and Rodriguez were found to be acting suspiciously, the patrolmen approached and placed them under arrest. They
found marijuana in the pockets of Rodriguez and Abrera voluntarily handed over a plastic tea bag containing
marijuana, both of which were turned over for investigation. When investigated, Abrera voluntarily admitted to
having possessed the marijuana that was confiscated from him but pointed at Rodriguez as the one who gave him the
marijuana and blamed Rodriguez for it. Consequently, Rodriguez was charged with violating Sec. 4, Art. II of RA
6425. However, Abrera was not similarly charged because he was a user, with the police opting not to press any
charges against him.
ISSUE:
W/N the conviction of Rodriguez, based on the marijuana seized by the arresting officers without warrant, was
valid.
HELD: No. The marijuana confiscated from Rodriguez is inadmissible in evidence for having been taken without a
warrant.

The SC agrees with the SolGens assertion that the prosecution failed to establish that Rodriguez unlawfully sold,
distributed and delivered marijuana since the records show that the two prosecution witnesses (Pats. Gonzalez and
Bongalos) did not actually see Rodriguez transact any business dealing with marijuana. The person, who is in the
best position to testify whether Rodriguez sold marijuana or not, was Abrera, as he was the person whom Rodriguez
allegedly dealt with. The SC is placed at a quandary as to why Abrera was not prosecuted together with Rodriguez
nor was he made to testify for the prosecution when he was named as one of its witnesses. As testified to be the
prosecution witnesses, Abrera was not similarly charged with Rodriguez because Abrera, when investigated, pointed
at Rodriguez as the person who gave him the marijuana. The reliance made by the police investigator on Abreras
word is simply puzzling.
Admittedly, Pat. Gonzalez searched Rodriguez without a warrant. It is contended however that the warrantless
search was incidental to a lawful arrest. The arrest of Rodriguez itself was also made without a warrant of arrest. In
such a case, the arrest can be justified only if there was a crime committed in the presence of the arrest officers.

The arresting officers went to the Wonder Dog Circus to verify a telephone call that a person with a knapsack had
marijuana in his possession. Pat. Gonzalez admitted that they arrested Rodriguez because he acted suspiciously. Pat.
Bongalos also admitted in his testimony that he did not personally know whether Rodriguez was in possession of the
prohibited drug. There is no evidence to show that Rodriguez was committing any crime at the time of arrest.
The cardinal rule is that no person may be subjected by the police to a search of his house, body or personal
belonging except by virtue of a search warrant or on the occasion of a lawful arrest. If a person is searched without a
warrant, or under circumstances other than those justifying an arrest without warrant in accordance with law, merely
on suspicion that he is engaged in some felonious enterprise, and in order to discover if he has indeed committed a
crime, it is not only the arrest which is illegal but also, the search on the occasion thereof as being the fruit from the
poisonous tree. The marijuana supposedly confiscated from Rodriguez is therefore inadmissible in evidence for
having been taken in violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Thus, the RTC decision convicting Rodriguez is reversed and set aside. Rodriguez is acquitted of the offense
charged for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.