Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FACTS:
Chua Ho San was found guilty of transporting without appropriate legal authority the
regulated substance methamphetamine hydrochloride, in violation of Section 15, [1] Article III of
Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act. The antecedent facts are
as follows:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure conducted which produced the 29 plastic
packets of methamphetamine hydrochloride is valid
HELD:
No, the warrantless search and seizure conducted which produced the 29 plastic packets of
methamphetamine hydrochloride is not valid. The Constitution provides the inviolable right to
privacy of home and person and their right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose.
Also enshrined in the Constitution is the exclusionary principle which decrees that any evidence
obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding
While a search without a warrant is generally not valid, there are notable exceptions to this,
namely: (a) search of moving vehicles, (b) seizure in plain view, (c) customs searches, (d) waiver
or consent searches, (e) stop and frisk situations and (f) search incidental to a lawful arrest.
In an in flagrante delicto arrest, one instance of a valid arrest without a warrant, the arresting
officer must have personal knowledge of such facts or circumstances which is constitutive of
probable cause. Probable cause means that there is a reasonable ground of suspicion supported
by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man's belief that the
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. In the given facts, there does
not appear to be any indication that Chua participated in an ongoing criminal enterprise that
would justify the conduct of such an obtrusive search. In other words there is no probable cause
for an in flagrante arrest to be done and therefore no valid instance to search the accused without
a warrant.
Also, the contention of the prosecution that there was a consented search is likewise without
merit. No valid waiver could have been made by Chua in the given situation since he could not
fully understand what the police officers were saying. All that was used was sign language and as
such it cannot logically be inferred from his alleged cognizance of the “sign language” that he
deliberately, intelligently, and consciously waived his right against such an intrusive search.
Given that the arrest of Chua without a warrant does not fall within one of the valid instances
provided by the Rules of Court for a valid warrantless arrest, the arrest of the accused is therefore
not valid. Following the exclusionary principle therefore, the evidence obtained via the invalid
search is therefore fruit of the poisonous tree and is not admissible.