Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Petitioner
accused-appellants were caught in flagrante delicto loading transparent plastic bags containing white
crystalline substance into an L-300
with the prosecution that the urgency of the situation meant that the buy-bust team had no time to
secure a search warrant
warrantless seizure of the transparent plastic bags can likewise be sustained under the plain view
doctrine.
Respondent
They contend that a seizure of any evidence as a result of an illegal search is inadmissible in any
proceeding for any purpose.
He asserts that no formal notice of the hearing was sent to him or his counsel, to his prejudice.
Court
A settled exception to the right guaranteed in the aforequoted provision is that of an arrest made during
the commission of a crime, which does not require a warrant. Such warrantless arrest is considered
reasonable and valid under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
Consider the circumstances immediately prior to and surrounding the arrest of accused-appellants:
(1) the police officers received information from an operative about an ongoing shipment of contraband;
(2) the police officers, with the operative, proceeded to Villa Vicenta Resort in Barangay Bignay II,
Sariaya, Quezon;
(3) they observed the goings-on at the resort from a distance of around 50 meters; and
(4) they spotted the six accused-appellants loading transparent bags containing a white substance into a
white L-300 van.
present in the instant case are all the elements of illegal possession of drugs:
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
(3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug
Johnson
Petitioner
They found out that Johnson was carrying 3 packs of Shabu under her girdle while she was being
inspected by the lady frisker at the airport
Policemen accompanied her to the comfort room to check on whats on her abdominal area
Respondent
Johnson contended that her Constitutional rights were violated and that she was arrested illegally
Johnson was charged for the possession of 3 plastic bages of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
regulated drug, weighing a total of 580.2 grams; a violation of 16 of RA 6425
Court
The constitutional right of the accused was not violated as she was never placed under custodial
investigation but was validly arrested without warrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113
of tie 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure
"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 in fact just been committed and person to be arrested has committed it;
The methamphetamine hydrochloride seized from her during the routine frisk at the airport was
acquired legitimately
Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With increased concern over airplane hijacking
and terrorism has come increased security at the nation's airports.
travelers are often notified through airport public address systems, signs, and notices in their airline
tickets that they are subject to search and, if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such
would be subject to seizure.
The packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride having thus been obtained through a valid warrantless
search, they are admissible in evidence against Johnson.
UNILAB
Petitioner
A representative from UNILAB filed an application for search warrant before the court
They searched the first and second flr of a building located at Aragon St., Sta. Cruz, MNL
They found Disudrin and Inoflox products in an open display at the third and fourth flr of the bldg.
UNILAB, through the Ureta Law Office, contends that the seizure of the items was justified by the plain
view doctrine.
Respondent
They insisted that they cannot seize the products in the third and fourth flr because it was not described
in the search warrant
They immediately filed a Urgent Motion to Quash the Search Warrant or to Suppress Evidence.
They pointed out, however, that such premises was different from the address described in the search
warrant
asserted that the NBI officers seized Disudrin and Inoflox products which were not included in the list of
properties to be seized in the search warrant.
they insisted that the items seized were contained in boxes at the time of the seizure at No. 1524-A,
Lacson Avenue corner Aragon Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, and were not apparently incriminating on plain
view. Moreover, the seized items were not those described and itemized in the search warrant
application, as well as the warrant issued by the court itself.
Court
trial court issued an Order granting the motion of the respondents, on the ground that the things seized,
namely, Disudrin and Inoflox, were not those described in the search warrant and issued an advisory that
the seized articles could no longer be admitted in evidence against the respondents in any proceedings,
as the search warrant had already been quashed.
The State must adduce evidence to prove that the elements for the doctrine to apply are present,
namely:
(a) the executing law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an initial intrusion or otherwise
properly in a position from which he can view a particular order;
(c) it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a
crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure It was thus incumbent on the NBI and the petitioner
to prove that the items were seized on plain view. It is not enough that the sealed boxes were in the
plain view of the NBI agents.