People v Kagui Malasusui | G.R. No. 44335

Facts:

At about 530am, Tan Why, a Chinese merchant, was found lying on the ground, with several wounds in the head. One of his wounds was fatal because it fractured his skull on the upper part of his forehead. He died as a result of this wound.

When Tan Why was still alive on the morning he was found, Moro Alamada, who lived in the same house as of the deceased, approached and asked the deceased who had attacked him, and Tan Why laconically answered, “Kagui”. Kagui was known by this name in Cotabato, whereupon Lieutenant A. Jacaria of the Constabulary ordered his immediate arrest.

The accused was arrested in the morning of the same day, and after he had been brought to Lieutenant Jacaria, who had already been informed, that Kagui had just redeemed two pairs of bracelets from some pawnshops of Cotabato and that he carried money, said lieutenant asked him for the bracelets and he then voluntarily and without protest produced what now appear in the record as Exhibit A.

After Kagui had voluntarily produced the bracelets, he was asked if he had any thing else, he tremblingly answered in the negative. So, he was later searched, without opposition or protest on his part, and it was discovered that he also had the pocketbook (Exhibit B), containing P92 in bills (Exhibit C), Tan Why's identification card and a memorandum of amounts with some Chinese characters (Exhibit D). In one of the pockets of his pants was found some change, making the total amount of money found in his possession P92.68.

The foregoing facts which were inferred from the testimony of the government witnesses, imputed to Kagui the crime of robbery with homicide. He was thereafter convicted of said crime by the lower court.

Kagui then appealed with the SC contending that he was subjected to the rigor of an unreasonable search to dispossess him of his effects without judicial warrant, and that the court should have ordered their return to him when he so formally requested before the trial, is unfounded

Issue: WON there was an unreasonable warrantless search.

Held:

None. The right to be secure from unreasonable search may be waived either expressly or impliedly.

When the search of the person detained or arrested and the seizure of the effects found in his possession are incidental to an arrest made in conformity with the law, they cannot be considered unreasonable, much less unlawful.

Article III, section 1, paragraph (3), of our Constitution is identical in all respects to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; and said constitutional precept has been interpreted as not prohibiting arrests, searches and seizures without judicial warrant, but only those that are unreasonable.

Also, when he was searched after having voluntarily produced the bracelets before Sergeant Jacaria, he did not show the least opposition. It follows, therefore, that the lower court committed no error in accepting as evidence not only because the appellant did not object to the taking thereof from him when searched, but also because the effects found in his possession of a person detained or arrested are perfectly admissible as evidence against him, if they constitute the corpus delicti or are pertinent or relevant thereto. It is certainly repugnant to maintain the opposite view because it would amount to authorizing the return to the accused of the means of conviction seized from him, notwithstanding their being eloquent proofs of crime, for him to conceal, destroy or otherwise dispose of, in order to assure his impunity.

Conviction affirmed.

People v Del Mundo | G.R. No. 138929

Facts:

On November 20, 1997 at around 3:05pm, an information was received by the Chief of Police of Calatagan that Del Mundo was at that very moment selling illegal drugs in Barangay Real, Calatagan.

So, a team of four (4) policemen were immediately instructed to go to the said barangay and to apprehend the suspect.

Arriving at Barangay, the team saw Del Mundo standing beside a tricycle, conversing with another person whom the policemen could not identify. From a distance, they observed Del Mundo hand something over to the other person. Upon the policemen’s approach, Del Mundo hurriedly boarded his tricycle and sped away while his companion fled on foot into the sugarcane fields. The latter was chased by PO2 Creus and PO2 Umali, but they failed to catch him. Meanwhile, PO2 Ancheta and PO1 Jonson caught Del Mundo.

The arresting officers asked Del Mundo to alight from his vehicle, after which PO2 Ancheta subjected him to a body search. Finding no illegal drugs or weapons on accused-appellant’s person, the two police officer proceeded to search the tricycle. There they found a package wrapped in newspaper inside a plastic bag which appeared to be two (2) bricks of marijuana. They arrested Del Mundo and brought him to the police headquarters for investigation. Thereafter, he was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 with the RTC.

The trial court upheld the validity of the warrantless arrest of Del Mundo and the seizure of the plastic bag containing the marijuana.

Del Mundo contends that the search of the vehicle and consequent seizure of the marijuana were illegal since there was neither a warrant of arrest nor a search warrant issued prior to the incident. He argues that without a warrant, his vehicle cannot be searched nor can he be subjected to a body search because "inspection is merely limited to a visual search." When the policemen unwrapped the package and smelled the contents, they went beyond a visual search since it is evident that the marijuana was not immediately visible.

Issue: WON there was an illegal warrantless search of Del Mundo’s vehicle.

Held:

None. In the instant case, the evidence on record established beyond any doubt that Del Mundo was in possession of the package containing the marijuana. It was found inside the vehicle he owned and was driving at the time he was apprehended. His possession thereof gives rise to the disputable presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, that he is the owner of the package and its contents.

His bare, unpersuasive and uncorroborated disavowal – that the package belonged to his unidentified passenger – is a mere denial which by itself is insufficient to overcome this presumption. It is well-established that this defense, in the absence of convincing evidence, is invariably viewed with disfavor by the courts for it can be easily concocted. In fact, it is the most common defense tactic employed in most cases involving illegal drugs.

Also, The search of a moving vehicle is one of the doctrinally accepted exceptions to the constitutional mandate that no search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge after personally determining the existence of probable cause. The warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle carrying the prohibited drugs can be quickly moved out of the area or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Therefore, the warrantless search of accused-appellant’s tricycle, which he used in transporting the marijuana, and by which he attempted to escape, was valid.

The policemen did not even have to open the package to determine its contents because having detected the scent of marijuana, the policemen had legal authority, as well as the legal duty, to open the package and examine the contents if indeed it was marijuana. There is thus no merit in Del Mundo argument that the physical evidence presented by the prosecution was obtained through an illegal warrantless search. Besides, there is no showing that Del Mundo objected to the search of his vehicle and the opening of the package. Drugs discovered as a result of a consented search are admissible in evidence.