Case Summary (G.R. No. 120915)
Key Dates
December 13–14, 1988: Informant’s tip; surveillance and arrest
December 14, 1988: Seizure of approximately 8.5 kg marijuana
1989–1990: Trial proceedings in Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City
April 3, 1998: Decision of the Supreme Court
Facts of the Case
– On December 13, 1988, NARCOM received information that “Aling Rosa” would arrive the next day from Baguio City carrying a large quantity of marijuana.
– A surveillance team (Abello, Domingo, Sudiacal, Imperial, Santiago, Quirubin) stationed near the bus unloading area at around 4:00 PM on December 14.
– At approximately 6:30 PM, a Victory Liner bus arrived. The informant identified Rosa Aruta carrying a traveling bag.
– Upon approach, officers introduced themselves, requested to see the bag, and Aruta handed it over. Inside were plastic-wrapped dried marijuana leaves marked “Cash Katutaka.”
– The bag and bus ticket were confiscated; specimens tested positive for marijuana at the PC/INP Crime Laboratory.
Trial Court Proceedings
– Arraignment: Aruta pleaded not guilty.
– Prosecution rested on officers’ testimony and forensic report.
– Defense filed a demurrer to evidence, alleging unconstitutional search and seizure; the court denied without ruling on merits.
– Aruta testified she had been asked by an elderly woman to carry a bag and was then accosted without a warrant, observed no search warrant, and could not identify the woman.
– Defense objected to admissibility of seized items; the trial court convicted Aruta for transporting prohibited drugs, imposed life imprisonment and a ₱20,000 fine.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether NARCOM agents could lawfully search a vehicle or passenger without a warrant.
- Whether courts would have issued a search warrant or deemed it defective.
- Whether the warrantless search and seizure violated constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
- Comparative strength of the defense denial versus prosecution evidence.
Constitutional Framework on Search and Seizure
– Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees security against unreasonable searches and seizures and mandates that warrants issue only upon probable cause, determined personally by a judge, with particular descriptions of place and items.
– Article III, Section 3(2) excludes from evidence any material obtained in violation of these provisions (exclusionary rule).
Recognized Exceptions to Warrant Requirement
- Search incidental to lawful arrest (Rule 126, Sec. 12, Rules of Court)
- Plain-view doctrine (valid intrusion, inadvertent discovery, immediately apparent evidence)
- Search of moving vehicles (reduced expectation of privacy)
- Voluntary consent
- Customs searches
- Stop-and-frisk
- Exigent or emergency circumstances
Standards for Probable Cause
– Must be based on reasonable grounds of suspicion or belief, supported by circumstances that would lead a prudent person to conclude an offense is being or has been committed.
– In warrantless searches, officers may rely on informant tips only when accompanied by additional observable factors (suspicious behavior, circumstances of tip).
Analysis of Probable Cause and Exceptions
– Informant’s tip was specific as to person, date, vehicle and contraband, yet officers had ample opportunity to secure a warrant.
– Aruta exhibited no suspicious conduct before being confronted; she was off a public bus and merely crossing the street.
– No exigent circumstance existed; the contraband was not in plain view until the bag was opened.
– The moving-vehicle exception did not apply because the search occurred after Alita disembarked.
– No lawful consent: mere handing over of the bag under authority did not constitute voluntary waiver of constitutional rights.
Legality of Arrest and Search
– Under Rule 113, Section 5, arrest without warrant is lawful only when the offense is committed or attempting to be committed in the officer’s presence;
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 120915)
Facts of the Case
- On December 13, 1988, P/Lt. Ernesto Abello of NARCOM–Olongapo City received a tip from an informant named “Benjie” that “Aling Rosa” would arrive from Baguio City on December 14 carrying a large volume of marijuana.
- At around 4:00 PM on December 14, 1988, Abello and a team of officers took positions near the PNB building and Caltex station in West Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City, awaiting the arrival of the suspect.
- At about 6:30 PM, a Victory Liner bus (body no. 474, “BGO”) stopped by the PNB building; two females and one male alighted. The informant identified one female as “Aling Rosa,” carrying a travelling bag.
- Agents introduced themselves as NARCOM officers; upon request, the accused handed over her bag. Inside was approximately 8.5 kg of dried marijuana in a plastic pack marked “Cash Katutak.”
- The bag and bus ticket (signed by Lt. Domingo) were confiscated; a Receipt of Property Seized was prepared at the NARCOM office.
- Forensic Chemist P/Maj. Marlene Salangad tested the specimen at PC/INP Crime Laboratory, Pampanga, confirming it as marijuana.
Procedural History
- The accused was charged under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) for transporting 8.5 kg of marijuana.
- Upon arraignment, she pleaded not guilty.
- After the prosecution rested, the defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence, alleging an illegal search and seizure; it was denied without resolution on the merits.
- The accused testified, contradicting the officers: she claimed she was asked by an old woman to carry a bag, was arrested without a warrant while crossing the street, and no warrant was shown.
- After conviction by the Regional Trial Court, sentencing was life imprisonment and P20,000 fine.
- The accused appealed to the Supreme Cou