G.R.No. 74869 July 6, 1988

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI

Penned by CRUZ, J.:

Facts:

Idel Aminnudin was convicted for trafficking and selling marijuana leaves by the lowercourt. He was arrested without a warrant while he was descending from the gangplank ofa ship. His bag was searched by the investigators, where they seized marijuana leaves.

The arresting officers contend that no warrant of arrest and search warrant werenecessary because they were certain that their search would yield positive results from atip or intelligence report they allegedly received from an informer. The said tip informedthem about the arrival of Idel Aminnudin who would certainly handcarry marijuanaleaves.

Issue:

Whether it is necessary to issue a search warrant due to the urgency of the event

Ruling:

The mandate of the Bill of Rights is clear:

Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers andeffects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and forany purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shallissue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge afterexamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses hemay produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and thepersons or things to be seized.

In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judgeafter personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause.

Contrary to the averments of the government, the accused-appellant was not caught inflagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been committed to justifythe warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.

Even expediency could not be invoked to dispense with the obtention of the warrant as inthe case of Roldan v. Arca, 24 for example. Here it was held that vessels and aircraft aresubject to warrantless searches and seizures for violation of the customs law becausethese vehicles may be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction before the warrantcan be secured.

The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations ofthe PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could haveobtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V

Wilcon 9.

His name was known. The vehicle was Identified. The date of its arrival was certain. Andfrom the information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that therewas probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. Noeffort was made to comply with the law.

The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head ofthe arresting team, had determined on his own authority that a "search warrant was notnecessary."

In the many cases where this Court has sustained the warrantless arrest of violators ofthe Dangerous Drugs Act, it has always been shown that they were caught red-handed, asa result of what are popularly called "buy-bust" operations of the narcotics agents. 25

Rule 113 was clearly applicable because at the precise time of arrest the accused was inthe act of selling the prohibited drug.

In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest,committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just doneso.

What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was nooutward indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of theother passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel.

It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that hesuddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger thattriggered his arrest.

The identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers(and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediatelyarrest him.

While this is not to say that the accused-appellant is innocent, for indeed his very ownwords suggest that he is lying, that fact alone does not justify a finding that he is guilty.The constitutional presumption is that he is innocent, and he will be so declared even ifhis defense is weak as long as the prosecution is not strong enough to convict him.

Without the evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from Aminnudin, the case of theprosecution must fall. That evidence cannot be admitted, and should never have beenconsidered by the trial court for the simple fact is that the marijuana was seized illegally.

It is the fruit of the poisonous tree, to use Justice Holmes' felicitous phrase.

The search was not an incident of a lawful arrest because there was no warrant of arrestand the warrantless arrest did not come under the exceptions allowed by the Rules ofCourt. Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the evidence obtained therebywas inadmissible.

Decision:

The Supreme Court acquitted Aminnudin. Because the the illegally seized marijuana wasinadmissible as evidence against him, his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonabledoubt and he must therefore be discharged on the presumption that he is innocent.