People v.

Doria
735
Date January 22, 1999 GR Number 125299 Ponente
Puno J.

Article 3, Section 2 BRIAN PINEDA

Petitioners: People Respondents: . Doria
Doctrine:
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that
view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in
evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of
a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

FACTS:
In 1995, members of the PNP Narcotics Command (Narcom), received information from
2civilian informants (CI) that one “Jun” was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong
City. The Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrest “Jun” in a buy-bust operation. The
Narcom agents formed Team Alpha they designated PO3 Manlangit as the poseur-buyer. At
7:20 a.m., “Jun” appeared. PO3 Manlangit handed “Jun” the marked bills worth
P1,600.00.The exchange of money for a marijuana was completed. “Jun” asked PO3 to
wait for an hour while he will get the mariujuana from his associate.

After a while, when “Jun” was about to give the marijuana,PO3 Manlangit forthwith arrested
“Jun”. They frisked “Jun” but did not find the marked bills on him. Upon inquiry, “Jun” left
the money to his associate “Neneth”. The team went to the house and they noticed a box
under the dining table. Suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit entered “Neneth’s” house and took
hold of the box. He peeked inside the box and found that it contained 10 bricks of what
appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. Simultaneous with the box’s discovery, SPO1
Badua recovered the marked bills from “Neneth.”

They arrested “Neneth and Jun”.They learned that “Jun” is Florencio Doria y Bolado
while “Neneth” is Violeta Gaddao y Catama. Both of them were charged with violation of
Section 4, in relation to Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Actof 1972. The trial court found
the existence of an “organized/syndicated crime group” and sentenced both to death and pay
a fine of P500,000.00 each. Hence, the automatic review.
.

Issue/s: Ruling:
1) W/N the warrantless arrest of Doria was lawful? YES 1. Yes
2.) W/N warrantless arrest and search of her person and residence was 2. No
lawful?

Rationale:

W/N the warrantless arrest of Doria was lawful? YES

Appellant was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended
in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy bust operation, the police are not only authorized but
duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.

W/N warrantless arrest and search of her person and residence was lawful? NO

Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to
give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any
crime. Contrary to the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for appellant
Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit." Neither could the
arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified under the second instance of Rule 113. "Personal
knowledge" of facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be
based upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion." If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had,
in his own right, knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a
criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable.

Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao was illegal, it follows that the
search of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and
marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest. The fact that the box
containing about six (6) kilos of marijuana[137] was found in the house of accused-
appellant Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.

NOTES:
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that
view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in
evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of
a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.