Title
People vs. Calantiao y Dimalanta
Case
G.R. No. 203984
Decision Date
Jun 18, 2014
Calantiao, arrested after a traffic dispute, was found with marijuana during a warrantless search. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, ruling the search valid, chain of custody intact, and his defenses unsubstantiated.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 61584)

Prosecution Evidence

PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez testified to witnessing the shooting, chase, and seizure of the bag and its contents. The taxi driver, Crisendo Amansec, corroborated that two passengers fired shots and fled. Documentary evidence included the request for laboratory examination, the physical sciences report, photographs of the bricks, referral slip, and sworn affidavits of the officers and the taxi driver.

Defense Account

Calantiao claimed the incident stemmed from a traffic altercation. He alleged PO1 Mariano assaulted him and Reyes, planted marijuana, and fabricated drug charges. He denied knowledge or possession of the bricks, asserting coercion and framing by police.

RTC Ruling

The Regional Trial Court found the prosecution’s witnesses credible, held the warrantless search and seizure lawful as incident to a valid arrest, and ruled all elements of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Calantiao was sentenced to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, concluding the officers’ warrantless arrest was justified by hot pursuit and reasonable suspicion, and that the subsequent search and seizure fell within the search‐incident‐to‐arrest exception. It also held the chain of custody intact.

Issue on Warrantless Search

Calantiao challenged the admissibility of the marijuana, arguing the seizure violated the Plain View Doctrine and that the search exceeded lawful bounds, rendering the evidence inadmissible.

Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

Under Rule 126, Section 13, a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest is permissible to protect officers and prevent evidence destruction. The black bag containing the bricks was in Calantiao’s immediate control, justifying the search and seizure.

Plain View Doctrine Not Applicable

The Supreme Court explained the Plain View Doctrine supplements other exceptions (e.g., search incident to arrest) when officers inadvertently discover evidence. Here, the officers deliberately searched Calantiao upon arrest; they did not merely observe the bag in plain view.

Chain of Custody and Inventory

RA 9165, Section 21, and its IRR req

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.