G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
BILLY ACOSTA, Accused-Appellant
"xxx.
Section 2,20 Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which, such search and seizure become "unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional provision. To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2),21 Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. In other words, evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.22
One of the recognized exceptions to the need of a warrant before a search may be effected is when the "plain view" doctrine is applicable.1awp++i1 In People v. Lagman,23 this Court laid down the following parameters for its application":
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The 'plain view' doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.24 (Emphases supplied)
In this case, the first and third requisites were not seriously contested by Acosta. Instead, he argues that the second requisite is absent since the discovery of the police officers of the marijuana plants was not inadvertent as it was prompted by Salucana. After a careful review of the records, this Court is inclined to agree.
The testimonies of P/Insp. Gundaya, SPO4 Legaspi, and Salucana collectively paint the picture that the police officers proceeded with the arrest of Acosta for the mauling incident armed with prior knowledge that he was also illegally planting marijuana:
Direct Examination
[Assistant City Prosecutor Alfredo Z. Gomez (ACP Gomez)]: Why did you know that marijuana plants are owned and planted by the accused Billy Acosta?
[P/Insp. Gundaya]: It was disclosed to us by his foster father Alfredo Salucana that Billy Acosta is cultivating marijuana plants.25 (Emphasis supplied)
Direct Examination
[ACP Gomez]: If you know who was the one who planted those marijuana plants?
[SPO4 Legaspi]: I do not have personal knowledge considering that we did not see the accused in this case cultivate the plants. However, we just have been in [sic] fed of the information by Alfredo Salucana that it was Billy Acosta who cultivated that plants.26 (Emphasis supplied)
Direct Examination
[Court]: And that was the only time that you resort to report the incident to the police because he hurt you?
[Salucana]: Yes, Sir.
Q: At that time you reported the matter to the police you also told the police that Billy Acosta was planting marijuana?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: That is why they went with you because of that report because he planted marijuana and he struck you with a piece of wood?
A: Yes, Sir.
x x x x
ACP Gomez: (continuing) Would you know of any reason why Billy Acosta would strike you with a wood?
[Salucana]: Because of the marijuana that I was able to pass.
x x x x
Q: Did you ever call the attention of Billy Acosta about the marijuana plants you testified to?
A: I told him that planting the marijuana plants is against the law.
Q: What was his response?
A: He told me that he will change when he will be imprisoned.27 (Emphases supplied)
It is clear from Salucana's testimony that he knew of Acosta's illegal activities even prior to the mauling incident. In fact, it may be reasonably inferred that the mauling incident had something to do with Acosta's planting of marijuana. It is also clear that Salucana apprised the police officers of the illegal planting and cultivation of the marijuana plants when he reported the mauling incident. Thus, when the police officers proceeded to Acosta's abode, they were already alerted to the fact that there could possibly be marijuana plants in the area. This belies the argument that the discovery of the plants was inadvertent. In People v. Valdez,28 the Court held that the "plain view" doctrine cannot apply if the officers are actually "searching" for evidence against the accused, to wit:
Note further that the police team was dispatched to appellant's kaingin precisely to search for and uproot the prohibited flora. The seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Clearly, their discovery of the cannabis plants was not inadvertent. We also note the testimony of SPO2 Tipay that upon arriving at the area, they first had to "look around the area" before they could spot the illegal plants. Patently, the seized marijuana plants were not "immediately apparent" and a "further search" was needed. In sum, the marijuana plants in question were not in "plain view" or "open to eye and hand." The "plain view" doctrine, thus, cannot be made to apply.29 (Emphases supplied)
Verily, it could not be gainsaid that the discovery was inadvertent when the police officers already knew that there could be marijuana plants in the area. Armed with such knowledge, they would naturally be more circumspect in their observations. In effect, they proceeded to Acosta's abode, not only to arrest him for the mauling incident, but also to verify Salucana's report that Acosta was illegally planting marijuana. Thus, the second requisite for the "plain view" doctrine is absent. Considering that the "plain view" doctrine is inapplicable to the present case, the seized marijuana plants are inadmissible in evidence against Acosta for being fruits of the poisonous tree.30
All told, since the marijuana plants seized from Acosta constitute inadmissible evidence in violation of Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and given that the confiscated plants are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court finds Acosta's conviction to be improper and therefore, acquits him.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 22, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01612-MIN is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Billy Acosta is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
Xxx."
