Case Title PEOPLE V.

RODRIGUEZA

G.R. no. 95902

Main Topic Sec.2 Searches and Seizures

Other Related Topic

Date: 4 Feb 1992

DOCTRINES
1. UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

FACTS:
Basahin muna ang ART III, Section 2- unreasonable searches and seizures. Facts: NARCOM agents staged
a buy-bust operation, after gaining information that there was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs
in Tagas, Albay. The participating agents were given money treated with ultraviolet powder. One of the
agents went to said location, asked for a certain Don. Thereafter, the Don, herein accused, met with him
and “a certain object wrapped in a plastic” later identified as marijuana was given in exchange for P200.

The agent (Taduran, para at least may isang pangalan tayong alam) went back to headquarters and made a
report, based on which, a team was subsequently organized and a raid was conducted in the house of the
father of the accused. During the raid, the NARCOM agents were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves
and a plastic syringe among others. There was no authorization by any search warrant.

The accused was found positive of ultraviolet powder. The lower court, considering the evidences obtained
and testimonies from the prosecution, found him guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE:
W/N the accused can be convicted, and if the evidence obtained can be used against him,
dahil walang search warrant nung inaresto sya.

Remember, there were 2 operations. Yung 1st was a buy-bust operation, which is an
"entrapment", which is LEGAL, because that is an in flagrante delicto arrest.

KASO, after the poseur-buyer bought the suspected marijuana (suspected talaga, kasi yun
ang nasa report), they did NOT arrest Don Rodrigueza right away. Ni-report lang ng mga
police na nakabili sila ng joots, at nakakuha na ng evidence by giving the "marked
money" to the suspect Don.

Don was not arrested right away, in short. In fact, he was arrested only after the 2nd
operation, the warrantless search.
HELD:
The NARCOM agents’ procedure in the entrapment of the accused failed to meet the
qualification that the suspected drug dealer must be caught red-handed in the act of selling
marijuana to a person posing as a buyer, since the operation was conducted after the actual
exchange. So in short, hindi sya justifiable as an in flagrante delicto arrest.

Said raid also violated accused’s right against unreasonable search and seizure, as the
situation did not fall in the circumstances wherein a search may be validly made even without
a search warrant.

Naka-enumerate sa case ang mga VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES, aside from the "in
flagrante, hot pursuit, and escapee" cases. Ito yun:

1. When the owner WAIVES his right to the warrant;

2. when the search is INCIDENTAL to a lawful arrest (like pag kinapkapan ka);
3. When it involves vessels and aircrafts in violation of Customs Laws;
4. When it is made on Automobiles to prevent violations of Smuggling or Immigration laws;
5. when it involves prohibited articles in plain view;
6. Or in cases of safety inspections on buildings or premises, to enforce fire, sanitary, and
building regulations.

The NARCOM agents could not have justified their act by invoking the urgency and
necessity of the situation because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the
place had already been put under surveillance for quite some time. Had it been their intention
to conduct the raid, then they should, because they easily could, have first secured a search
warrant during that time.

The Court further notes the confusion and ambiguity in the identification of the confiscated
marijuana leaves and other prohibited drug paraphernalia presented as evidence against
appellant:
CIC Taduran, who acted as the poseur buyer, testified that appellant sold him 100 grams of
dried marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic bag. Surprisingly, no plausible explanation has
been advanced therefor, on what were submitted to and examined by the PCCL and thereafter
utilized as evidence against the appellant. Ayan o, puro SUSPECTED.

One (1) red and white colored plastic bag containing the following:
Exh. "A"—Thirty (30) grams of SUSPECTED dried marijuana fruiting tops contained inside a
transparent plastic bag.
Exh. "B"— Fifty (50) grams of SUSPECTED dried marijuana leaves and seeds contained inside a
white colored plastic labelled "Robertson".
Exh. "C"— Four (4) aluminum foils each containing SUSPECTED dried marijuana fruiting tops
having a total weight of seven grams then further wrapped with a piece of aluminum foil.
Exh. "D"— Five (5) small transparent plastic bags each containing SUSPECTED dried marijuana
fruiting tops having a total weight of seventeen grams.
Exh. "E"— One plastic syringe.

Evidently, these prohibited articles were among those confiscated during the so-called follow-up
raid in the house of Rodrigueza’s father. The unanswered question then arises as to the
IDENTITY of the marijuana leaves that became the basis of appellant's conviction.

THE NEED FOR CERTAINTY AND CONCLUSIVENESS: In People vs. Rubio, this Court had
the occasion to rule that the plastic bag and the dried marijuana leaves contained therein
constitute the corpus delicti of the crime. As such, the existence thereof must be proved with
"certainty and conclusiveness." Failure to do so would be fatal to the cause of the prosecution.
Conviction is reversed and set aside and accused is acquitted.