7/26/2019 51 People vs Musa- Ramos

1/1

PEOPLE VS MUSA

G.R. No. 96177 January 27, 1993

Facts:

A civilian informer gave the information that Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in

Suterville, Zamboanga City. Sgt. Ani was ordered by NARCOM leader Sgt. Belarga, to conduct a

surveillance and test buy on Musa. The civilian informer guided Ani to Musas house and gave the

description of Musa. Ani was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for P10.00.

The next day, a buy-bust was planned. Ani was to raise his right hand if he successfully buys

marijuana from Musa. As Ani proceeded to the house, the NARCOM team positioned themselves about

90 to 100 meters away. From his position, Belarga could see what was going on. Musa came out of the

house and asked Ani what he wanted. Ani said he wanted more marijuana and gave Musa the P20.00

marked money. Musa went into the house and came back, giving Ani two newspaper wrappers

containing dried marijuana. Ani opened and inspected it. He raised his right hand as a signal to the other

NARCOM agents, and the latter moved in and arrested Musa inside the house. Belarga frisked Musa in

the living room but did not find the marked money. Sgt. Belarga and Sgt. Lego went to the kitchen andfound a cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the corner of the kitchen. They asked Musa

about its contents but failed to get a response. So they opened it and found dried marijuana leaves

inside. Musa was then placed under arrest.

ISSUE:

Whether or Not the seizure of the plastic bag and the marijuana inside it is unreasonable, hence,

inadmissible as evidence

HELD:

Yes. It constituted unreasonable search and seizure thus it may not be admitted as evidence.

The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspects lawful arrest, may extend beyond the

person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control.

Objects in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are

subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine is usually applied where

a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes

across an incriminating object. It will not justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating nature

of the object is not apparent from the plain view of the object.

In the case at bar, the plastic bag was not in the plain view of the po lice. They arrested the

accused in the living room and moved into the kitchen in search for other evidences where they found

the plastic bag. Furthermore, the marijuana inside the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from

the plain view of said object.

Therefore, the plain view does not apply. The plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be

presented in evidence pursuant to Article III Section 3 (2) of the Constitution.

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/people-vs-musa-217-scra-597-gr-no-96177.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/people-vs-musa-217-scra-597-gr-no-96177.html