PEOPLE VS. ARUTA [288 SCRA 626; G.R. NO.

120515; 13 APR 1998]

Facts: On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a certain
Aling Rosa will be arriving from Baguio City with a large volume of marijuana and
assembled a team. The next day, at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the
bus coming from Baguio, when the informer pointed out who Aling Rosa was, 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 out to the police. They
found dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked cash katutak.
Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence alleging the
illegality of the search and seizure of the items. In her testimony, the accused claimed
that she had just come from Choice theatre where she watched a movie Balweg.
While about to cross the road an old woman asked her for help in carrying a shoulder
bag, when she was later on arrested by the police. She has no knowledge of the identity
of the old woman and the woman was nowhere to be found. Also, no search warrant
was presented.
The trial court convicted the accused in violation of the dangerous drugs of 1972
Issue: Whether or Not the police correctly searched and seized the drugs from the
accused.
Held: 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;
4. 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
accuseds 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.
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.
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.