747

PEOPLE v. ARUTA

GR NO. 120915FACTS:

On December 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant, Benjie, that a certain Aling Rosa will be arriving from Baguio City the following day. Benjie said that Aling Rosa will have with her a large volume of marijuana. On December 14, 1988 at around 4:00 PM, two groups of police team proceeded to West Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City.

Aling Rosa, as pointed out by the informant, got off Victory Liner Bus with plate number BGC474 stopped in front of the PNB building. Abello asked Aling Rosa about the contents of her bag and the latter handed it to the former. Upon inspection, the bag was found to contain dried marijuana leaves packed ina plastic bag marked with Cash Katutak. The police confiscated the bag. Aling Rosa was then brought to NARCOM office for investigation where a Receipt of Property Seized was prepared for the confiscated Marijuana leaves.

During the trial, instead of presenting evidence, the defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the items, thereby violating the accused-appelants constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure as well as their inadmissibility in evidence. It was denied by the trial court. RTC rendered a decision convicting Aling Rosa of transporting eight kilos and 500 grams if marijuana from Baguio City to Olongapo City, with the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonmentISSUES: Whether the warrantless search resulting to the arrest of the accused-appleant violated the latters constitutional right? HELD:Yes. NARCOM agents failed to comply with the rigid requirements of probable cause and warrantless arrest. There was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless search of the accused-appellants bag, there being no probably cause and the accused-appellant not having lawfully arrested. Accused-appellant cannot be said to be committing a crime. To legitimize the warrantless search and seizure of the accused-appellants bag, accused-appellant must have been validyly arrested under Section 5 of Rule 113 which provides:

Sec 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

a. When in his presence, the person to be arrested committed, is actually

committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;The act of Aruta in handling over her bag to the NARCOM agents could not be construed as voluntary submission or an implied acquiescence to the unreasonable search given the coercive circumstances. Thus, all the articles seized from the accused-appellant could not be used as evidence against her. There was really no excuse for NARCOM agents not to procure a search warrant considering that they had more than 24 hours to do so. This is an instances of fruit of the poisonous tree, hence illegal and inadmissible subsequently in evidence. Prepared by: Liz Angela A. Intia