PEOPLE VS.

NUEVAS
G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007
FACTS:
Police officers Fami and Cabling, during a stationary surveillance and
monitoring of illegal drug trafficking in Olongapo City, came across Jesus
Nuevas, who they suspected to be carrying drugs. Upon inquiry, Nuevas
showed them a plastic bag which contained marijuana leaves and bricks
wrapped in a blue cloth. He then informed the officers of two other persons
who would be making marijuana deliveries.
The police officers then proceeded to where Nuevas said his associates,
Reynaldo Din and Fernando Inocencio, could be located. Reynaldo Din was
carrying a plastic bag which contained marijuana packed in newspaper and
wrapped therein. When the police officers introduced themselves, Reynaldo
Din voluntarily handed the plastic bag over to them. After the items were
confiscated, the police officers took the three men to the police office.
Police officer Fami then revealed that when the receipt of the evidence was
prepared, all three accused were not represented by counsel. He likewise
disclosed that he was the one who escorted all the accused during their
physical examination. He also escorted all three to the Fiscal’s office where
they were informed of the charges against them.
The three found guilty by the trial court, and the case was automatically
elevated to the CA for review. However, Nuevas withdrew his appeal. Thus,
the case was considered closed and terminated as to him. The CA affirmed
the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the warrantless searches and seizure made by the police
officers valid?
RULING:
No. The warrantless searches and seizure made by the police officers is not
valid.
Our constitution states that a search and seizure must be carried through or
with a judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure becomes
“unreasonable” and any evidence obtained therefrom is inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding. The exceptions are:
(1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
(2)Search of evidence in “plain view”
 (3)Search of a moving vehicle
(4)Consented warrantless search
(5)Customs search
(6)Stop and frisk
(7)Exigent and emergency circumstances

The court holds that the searches and seizures conducted do not fall under
the first exception, warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.
Jurisprudence holds that a search incidental to a lawful arrest is
sanctioned by the Rules of Court. The arrest, however, must precede
search; the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search
substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest
if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of
the search.
In this case, Nuevas, Din and Inocencio were not committing a crime in the
presence of the police officers. Moreover, police officers Fami and Cabling
did not have personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the persons to
be arrested had committed an offense. The searches conducted on the
plastic bag then cannot be said to be merely incidental to a lawful arrest.
Reliable information alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest
under Section 5(a), Rule 113. The rule requires, in addition, that the
accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he “has
committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense.”