Anda di halaman 1dari 3

People vs Valdez 342 SCRA 25 September 25, 2000 En Banc Case Ruling: The search and seizure without

a warrant violated Sec. 2 Article III of the 1987 Constitution The plain view doctrine cannot apply. The seizure of evidence in plain view applies where the police inadvertently came across the object. In this case, the police team was dispatched precisely to search for the prohibited flora. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES - versus - JACK RACHO y RAQUERO, G.R. No. 186529 August 3, 2010 [O]bviously, this is an instance of seizure of the fruit of the poisonous tree, hence, the confiscated item is inadmissible in evidence consonant with Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution, any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

In VALDEZ vs. PEOPLE [G.R. No. 170180. November 23, 2007.], the factual milieu was as follows: Bautista testified that at around 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. of 17 March 2003, he was conducting the routine patrol along the National Highway in Barangay San Benito Norte, Aringay, La Union together with Aratas and Ordoo when they noticed petitioner, lugging a bag, alight from a mini-bus. The tanods observed that petitioner, who appeared suspicious to them, seemed to be looking for something. They thus approached him but the latter purportedly attempted to run away. They chased him, put him under arrest and thereafter brought him to the house of Barangay Captain Orencio Mercado (Mercado) where he, as averred by Bautista, was ordered by Mercado to open his bag. Petitioner's bag allegedly contained a pair of denim pants, eighteen pieces of eggplant and dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper and cellophane. It was then that petitioner was taken to the police station for further investigation.

The Court, in acquitting the accused made a number of findings in disallowing the evidence against him. The evidence against the accused may only be admissible if incident to a lawful arrest. None of the circumstance where an arrest without warrant is lawful was found to obtain in the case at bar. The accused has just alighted from the bus. Even if it were true that he ran from the tanods, flight is not synonymous with guilt. It is not unreasonable to expect that petitioner, walking the street at night, after being closely observed and then later tailed by three unknown persons, would attempt to flee at their approach. Under the circumstances, petitioner's flight lends itself just as easily to an innocent explanation as it does to a nefarious one. The accused has the right to be secure against any unreasonable searches on and seizure of his own body and any deprivation of his liberty being a most basic and fundamental one, the statute or rule that allows exception to the requirement of a warrant of arrest is strictly construed. Its application cannot be extended beyond the cases specifically provided by law." The same legal principle was relied upon in another case where the accused was accosted as he alighted from a ship and his personal effects searched [PEOPLE vs. AMINNUDIN, G.R. No.74869. July 6, 1988.] The authorities had every opportunity to secure a warrant to arrest and search but failed to do so. They had advanced knowledge of his identity and even the ship he was to board and seized him based on the furtive finger of an informant. There was nobasis for a warrantless arrest and therefore no basis for the ensuing search and seizure of the marjiuana he was allegedly carrying. Without the evidence of the marijuana seized from the accused, there is no basis for the charge against him. That evidence cannot be admitted since it is the fruit of the poisonoustree, to use Justice Holmes' felicitous phrase. The search was not an incident of a lawful arrest because there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did not come under the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court. Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible. The Court stated that those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the rights of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. As Justice Holmes, again, said, "I think it a less evil that some criminal should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part."

Anda mungkin juga menyukai