UP Law F2021 People v.

Aruta
Criminal Procedure Rule 126, Sec. 1 1998 Romero

SUMMARY

A tip was received by the police that a certain woman “Aling Rosa” would be travelling from Baguio to
Manila carrying quantities of marijuana. Rosa Aruta, with positive identification of the informant was
approached and asked about the content of her travelling bag after she stepped out of her Baguio-to-Manila
Bus; in there 8.5 kls of dried marijuana was found. She was charged and found guilty by the RTC but the
same was reversed by the SC saying that there was an invalid search, for having no warrant and not falling
into the enumerated exception for warrantless search, and an invalid warrantless arrest. Aruta was
acquitted and was set free.

FACTS

 According to the Police: Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a certain
"Aling Rosa" would be arriving from Baguio City the following day, December 14, 1988, with a large
volume of marijuana. Acting on said tip, P/Lt. Abello assembled a team;
 The next day, the team was positioned, with the informant able to point “Aling Rosa” stepped out of
the bus, carrying a travelling bag;
 The team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents and asked "Aling Rosa"
about the contents of her bag; she handed the bag to them;
 Upon inspection, the bag was found to contain dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked
"Cash Katutak." The team confiscated the bag together with the Victory Liner bus ticket;
 Accused-appellant Aruta was then brought to the NARCOM office for investigation where a Receipt
of Property Seized was prepared for the confiscated marijuana leaves;
 According to the accused Aruta: She claimed that immediately prior to her arrest, she had just
come from Choice Theater where she watched the movie "Balweg." While about to cross the road, an
old woman asked her help in carrying a shoulder bag. In the middle of the road, Lt. Abello and Lt.
Domingo arrested her and asked her to go with them to the NARCOM Office.
 Aruta disclaimed any knowledge as to the identity of the woman and averred that the old woman
was nowhere to be found after she was arrested. Moreover, she added that no search warrant was
shown to her by the arresting officers
 RTC did not believe Aruta’s version and found her guilty of transporting 8 kilos and 500 grams of
marijuana;
 Thus the automatic review of the SC

RATIO

W/N the warrantless search resulting to the arrest of accused-appellant violated the latter's
constitutional rights.
Yes. The Court held that a search may be conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of a search
warrant validly issued by a judge. And that the fundamental protection accorded by the search and seizure
clause is that between person and police must stand the protective authority of a magistrate clothed with
power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants or warrants of arrest.

It further held that the State cannot simply intrude indiscriminately into the houses, papers, effects, and
most importantly, on the person of an individual. The constitutional provision guaranteed protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures. It cited exceptions to obtaining warrant and held that the
instant case does not fall into any category. [It discussed at length the possibility of this case falling into
consented search, but it ultimately ruled that this was not the case here, saying that Aruta did not
voluntarily give her consent.]

Emphasis is to be laid on the fact that the law requires that the search be incidental to a lawful arrest, in
order that the search itself may likewise be considered legal. Therefore, it is beyond cavil that a lawful
arrest must precede the search of a person and his belongings. Where a search is first undertaken, and an
arrest effected based on evidence produced by the search, both such search and arrest would be unlawful,
for being contrary to law .

FALLO

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Olongapo City, is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
accused-appellant ROSA ARUTA Y MENGUIN is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED from
confinement unless she is being held for some other legal grounds. No costs.

SO ORDERED.