On December 13, 1988, P/Lt.

Abello was tipped off by his informant named Benjie, that a

certain “Aling Rosa” would be arriving from Baguio City the following day, with a large volume of
marijuana. Acting on said tip, Abello assembled a team. Said team proceeded to West Bajac-
Bajac, Olongapo City at around 4:00 in the afternoon 1988 and deployed themselves near the
Philippine National Bank building along Rizal Avenue and the Caltex gasoline station.

While thus positioned, a Victory Liner Bus stopped in front of the PNB building at around 6:30 in
the evening of the same day from where two females and a male got off. It was at this stage that
the informant pointed out to the team “Aling Rosa” who was then carrying a travelling bag.
Having ascertained that accused-appellant was “Aling Rosa,” the team approached her and
introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. When Abello asked “Aling Rosa” about the
contents of her bag, the latter handed it to the former.

Upon inspection, the bag was found to contain dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag
marked “Cash Katutak.” The team confiscated the bag together with the Victory Liner bus ticket
to which Lt. Domingo affixed his signature. Accused-appellant was then brought to the
NARCOM office for investigation where a Receipt of Property Seized was prepared for the
confiscated marijuana leaves.

Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed a “Demurrer to Evidence” alleging the
illegality of the search and seizure of the items thereby violating accused-appellant’s
constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure as well as their inadmissibility in
evidence. The said "Demurrer to Evidence" was, however, denied without the trial court ruling
on the alleged illegality of the search and seizure and the inadmissibility in evidence of the items
seized to avoid pre-judgmen. RTC convicted accused-appellant of transporting eight (8) kilos
and five hundred (500) grams of marijuana from Baguio City to Olongapo City in violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

ISSUE: Whether or Not the police correctly searched and seized the drugs from the accused.

RULING: NO. The right of a person to be secured against any unreasonable seizure of his body
and any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. A statute, rule or
situation which allows exceptions to the requirement of a warrant of arrest or search warrant
must perforce be strictly construed and their application limited only to cases specifically
provided or allowed by law. To do otherwise is an infringement upon personal liberty and would
set back a right so basic and deserving of full protection and vindication yet often violated.

The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence

2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of which are: (a) a prior valid intrusion
based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of
their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the
right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and (d) "plain view"
justified mere seizure of evidence without further search;

3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent
mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant
committed a criminal activity;
. Consented warrantless search;

5. Customs search;

6. Stop and Frisk;

7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.

The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and
seizure can be lawfully conducted.

The accused cannot be said to be committing a crime, she was merely crossing the street and
was not acting suspiciously for the Narcom agents to conclude that she was committing a crime.
There was no legal basis to effect a warrantless arrest of the accused’s bag, there was no
probable cause and the accused was not lawfully arrested.

The police had more than 24 hours to procure a search warrant and they did not do so. The
seized marijuana was illegal and inadmissible evidence.

In the instant case, the NARCOM agents were admittedly not armed with a warrant of
arrest. To legitimize the warrantless search and seizure of accused-appellant’s bag,
accused-appellant must have been validly arrested under Section 5 of Rule 113 which
provides that:

RULE 113, RULES OF COURT

Section 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 has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense;
b. When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances 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 is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement
to another.
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall
be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.

Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime. Neither was she about to
commit one nor had she just committed a crime. Accused-appellant was merely crossing the
street and was not acting in any manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the
NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime. It was only when
the informant pointed to accused-appellant and identified her to the agents as the carrier of the
marijuana that she was singled out as the suspect. The NARCOM agents would not have
apprehended accused-appellant were it not for the furtive finger of the informant because, as
clearly illustrated by the evidence on record, there was no reason whatsoever for them to
suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime, except for the pointing finger of the
informant. This the Court could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of the
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Neither was there any
semblance of any compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause and warrantless
arrests.

Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless search
of accused-appellant’s bag, there being no probable cause and the accused-appellant not
having been lawfully arrested. Stated otherwise, the arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically
follows that the subsequent search was similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful arrest.
The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure must perforce operate in
favor of accused-appellant. As such, the articles seized could not be used as evidence against
accused-appellant for these are “fruits of a poisoned tree” and, therefore, must be rejected,
pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution.

Sec. 3(2). Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.

RULE 126, RULES OF COURT

Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. — An application for search
warrant shall be filed with the following:

a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.

b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial region where
the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court
within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.

However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the
court where the criminal action is pending.

Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. — The officer, if refused admittance
to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open
any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to
execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully
detained therein.

Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and proceedings thereon.

(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant,
together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if the
return has been made, and if none, shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued
and require him to explain why no return was made. If the return has been made, the judge shall
ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been complained with and shall require that the
property seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has
been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book on
search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return, the result, and other actions of
the judge.

A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.