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. O-ong, 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.