PEOPLE VS.

SAMUEL YU VALDEZ alias

BEBOT
Quisumbing, J., March 3, 1999
Facts:
- Appeal from the Nov. 4, 1996
decision of the RTC of Lagawe,
Ifugao which found respondent guilty
of the crime of illegal transport of
marijuana buds/leaves and
sentencing him to recperp and to pay
a fine of 500Kphp
- Complaint alleged that on September
1, 1994, the respondent transported
marijuana weighing more or less 2
kilos in two separate containers on
board a Dangwa bus.
- SPO1 Mariano was in the
municipality of Banaue waiting for a
ride to report to Lagawe when a
civilian asset approached him to
intimate that an Ilocano was ready to
transport marijuana. Asset described
him as thin and possessing a green
bag. The two proceeded to Brgy. Oong, Hingyon, Ifugao, where they
halted two buses to look for the
alleged Ilocano. A quick search of the
second bus yielded respondent, whom
Mariano ordered to get out and open
his green bag. Contents: red and white
water jug and lunch box. He told the
man to open both and saw marijuana
leaves inside. Accused was then taken
and turned over to the PNP
Headquarters of Lagawe.
- Forensic Chemist of PNP Crime Lab
averred that from her examination, the
items from the jug and lunch box gave
positive results to the test for the
presence of marijuana.
CONTENTIONS:
(Respondent)
- He was coming back home alone to Nueva
Ecija from a workmates birthday party in
Ifugao. He had a hangover and was very
sleepy onboard the bus. The green bag was
under the seat in front of him. Still sleepy, he
noticed somebody sit beside him and later on
was woken by a tap on the shoulder. The one
named Mariano was dressed in fatigues.
Mariano asked him if he owned the bag to
which he replied, I do not know. I have a
fellow seated with me here but he is no more.
- He was made to step out of the bus and
forced to declare he was the bags owner. The
two policemen were the ones who opened the

bag and its contents were marijuana.

Thereafter, he was brought to the PNP Prov.
HQ.
- He was investigated, told to stay for a
while, and made to sign some papers
which he did not read. After an
overnight stay in the HQ, he was
brought to the hospital for a medical
examination about the pain on his
breast but kept mum about the blow
delivered by Mariano when he was
first apprehended. From there, he was
taken to Mun. Jail and then Prov. Jail.
- Assignment of Errors: 1) Court erred
in admitting the seized drugs in
evidence, 2) Court erred in convicting
accused despite prosecutions failure
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
- Marijuana allegedly seized from him
was product of an unlawful search
and thus inadmissible in evidence.
Issue:
WON The search and arrest of herein
respondent was legal and not unconstitutional.
Held:
Yes, search was legal. Appeal is denied.
Constitutional proscription against warrantless
searches and seizures admits of certain legal
and judicial exceptions: 1) warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under
Sec. 1, Rule 126 of the Roc and by prevailing
jurisprudence, 2) seizure of evidence in plain
view, 3) search of a moving vehicle, 4)
consented warrantless search, 5) customs
search, 6) stop and frisk, and 7) exigent and
emergency circumstances.
On the other hand, a lawful arrest without a
warrant may be made by a peace officer or a
private person under the ff. circumstances: a)
When, in his presence, the person has
committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense; b) When
an offense has in fact just been committed,
and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and c) When the person to be
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.

Appellant was caught in flagrante since he

was carrying marijuana at the time of his
arrest. The search made upon his personal
effects falls squarely under par (a) of the
foregoing provisions of law. While Mariano
was not armed with a search warrant, under
the cases circumstances, there was sufficient
probable cause for said police officer to
believe that appellant was then and there
committing a crime.
Probable Cause = no exact definition;
signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently
strong in themselves to warrant a cautious
mans belief that the person accused is
guilty of the offense with which he is
charged, or the existence of such facts and
circumstances which could lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed
and that the items, articles or objects
sought in connection with said offense or
subject to seizure and destruction by law is

in the place to be searched; resolved

according to the facts of the case.
Tipped information = sufficient probable
cause to effect a warrantless search and
seizure (People v. Tangliben, People v.
Maspil, People v. Malmstedt, People v.
Bagista, Manalili v. CA)
Mariano had to respond quickly to the call of
duty. No other passengers bag or possession
was inspected so it cannot be said that he was
fishing for evidence of a crime.
Guilt was proven when, upon ordered to get
his bag, accused brought with him the green
bag placed underneath the seat in front of him.
The presentation of an informant in illegal
drugs cases is not essential for conviction nor
is it indispensable for a successful prosecution
because his testimony would be merely
corroborative and cumulative.