7/28/2019 People vs. Leangsiri

1/2

People vs. Leangsiri

Facts:

Suchinda Leangsiri was arrested in the NAIA in the act of bringing into the

country approximately more than * kilo of heroin. In his arrest, he informed the

arresting officers that the heroin is meant to deliver to three other people in Las

Palmas Hotel in Manila.

Immediately, the NARCOM formed a group for a follow up operation in the

said Hotel. In the accuseds cooperation, he was allowed to check in to Room 504,

where the others will meet him to give the drugs.

Around 10 pm, Amidu two other co-appellants entered Room 504 and Leagsiri

gave them the drugs, before the appellants leave the room, the NARCOM officers

barged in and arrested the appellants.

Amidu, told the officers that he is staying in Rm 413 and that the two others

are in royal Palm Hotel. The officers then went to the room of Amidu, searching for

evidence and subsequently confiscated a telephone address bearing the name of

Leangsiri, other possessions and documents of Amidu were also confiscated.

In the case of the two other, the police confiscated a suit case and masking

tape and empty transparent bag, allegedly will be use in transporting the drugs.

The appellants were charged and was convicted in conspiring to transport

heroin violative of RA 6425. Hence this petition, alleging that the search is illegal

being conducted not in the direct premises of the arrest.

Issue:

Whether the articles sought in the other room and hotel, outside the direct

premises of the arrest admissible as evidence?

Held:

No. those article are inadmissible as evidence as it was obtained not in plan

view nor within the direct premises of the arrest.

The plain view doctrin applies to OBJECTS OF THE PLAIN VIEW OF AN OFFICER

WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO BE IN THE POSITION TO HAVE THAT VIEW ARE SUBJECT TOSEIZURE AND MAYBE PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE.

Thus, what can be admitted are evidences seized within the direct premise

where the accused has an immediate control which should only be Rm. 509.

In the case at bar, appellants were arrested in Room 504 of the Las Palmas

Hotel. The piece of paper bearing Leangsiri's name was obtained through a

7/28/2019 People vs. Leangsiri

2/2

warrantless search of Room 413 of the same hotel, and found tucked within the

pages of appellant Amidu's telephone and address book. Clearly, the warrantless

search is illegal and the piece of paper bearing Leangsiri's name cannot be

admitted as evidence against appellants. The inadmissibility of this evidence will

not, however, exculpate appellants. Its exclusion does not destroy the prosecution's

case against appellants. The remaining evidence still established their guilt beyondreasonable doubt.

Note:

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.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court stated the following limitations on the

application of the doctrine.

What the "plain view" cases have in common is that the police officer in each of

them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came

inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine

serves to supplement the prior justification whether it be a warrant for another

object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason

for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused and

permits the warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original justification

is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have

evidence before them; the "plain view" doctrine may not be used to extend a

general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating

at last emerges.

When there is waiver of right or gives his consent

A Valid waiver of right in Sec 2 art III, elements

(1) The right to be waived is existing

(2) The person waiving it had knowledge, actual or constructive

(3) He or she has actual intention to relinquish the right.