"Similarly, in this case, after receiving a tip from an informant, the police officers proceeded to the abandoned nipa hut without conducting any prior surveillance or verification of the facts given by the informant. There, PO2 Cruz peeked through the door of the hut which was slightly ajar and found the accused-appellants about ten meters away, sitting beside a table with what seemed to be a clear plastic sachet on it along with other paraphernalia, such as foil. This prompted PO2 Cruz to signal his teammates to enter the house and apprehend accused-appellants.
Lastly, this case cannot be considered a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(c) as accused-appellants were not fugitives fleeing the custody of a penal establishment at the time of their apprehension.
Corollary to warrantless arrests, this Court in Lapi v. People,63 reiterated the different kinds of valid warrantless search and seizure, thus:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence:
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view"
. . . .
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; and
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances."64
The first type of valid warrantless search and seizure will not apply as there was no valid warrantless arrest to begin with.
Similarly, the second type of valid warrantless search and seizure known as seizure in plain view, does not apply in this case. The Plain View Doctrine is "usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object[.]"65 To be valid, there must be a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest and, secondly, the evidence found must have been in plain view of the arresting officer and not inadvertently found.66
In United States case law, the plain view doctrine cannot be applied in one's curtilage, or the area immediately surrounding a person's home or dwelling where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.67 This gives emphasis to the sanctity of the home which is accorded special protection in line with the '"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects."68 The concept of curtilage was explained in United States v. Dunn,69 in this wise:
[C]urtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. We do not suggest that combining these factors produces a finely tuned formula that when mechanically applied, yields a "correct" answer to all extent-of-curtilage questions. Rather, these factors are useful analytical tools only to the degree that, in any given case, they bear upon the centrally relevant consideration — whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home's “umbrella" of Fourth Amendment protection.
Thus, law enforcers may seize evidence and contraband that are in plain view, as long as the officer is in a place where he has a legal right to be, and the seizure does not involve entering one's home or curtilage.
Applied in this case, the fact that PO2 Cruz saw accused-appellants around a table through the slightly opened door of an abandoned nipa hut, in itself cannot be considered a violation of the sanctity of their home or curtilage as they could not have any expectation of privacy in their location. However, this does not change the fact that the buy-bust team were at the abandoned nipa hut on the strength of a single tip, without conducting prior surveillance. The plain view doctrine is only proper when the two requirements—a prior valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest and that the evidence found was in plain view of the arresting officer—is met.
Here, the prosecution failed on the first requirement. There was no valid intrusion by the police officers as they did not have probable cause to enter the premises without a valid warrant of arrest or search warrant. It is apparent that PO2 Cruz's suspicion was anchored on the informant's tip they received earlier informing them of an on-going pot session in the area. Consequently, the act of peeping through an open door to ascertain what the accused-appellants were doing inside the house cannot be justified.
Illustrative is the case of People v. Bolasa,70 wherein the authorities proceeded to a certain house after being tipped off that Bolasa, among others, was packing drugs therein. After peeking through the window of the house and seeing and a man and a woman packing marijuana, the police entered the house, arrested the two, and seized the drugs and paraphernalia. There, this Court held that the arrests and resulting searches and seizures were invalid as the arresting officers did not have personal knowledge of the criminal activities in the house. It was further held that "[n]either can it be said that objects were seized in plain view [as the] the police officers intentionally peeped first through the window before they saw and ascertained the activities of accused-appellants inside the room."71
Nevertheless, this Court has held that peeping into a window may be deemed "plain view" if the law enforcement officer had prior justification for being at the position. In Miclat v. People,72 it was explained:
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[.]
It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. Since petitioners arrest is among the exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest and the evidence seized from the petitioner was the result of a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, which incidentally was in plain view of the arresting officer, the results of the ensuing search and seizure were admissible in evidence to prove petitioner's guilt of the offense charged."73 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
Unlike this case, in Miclat, the police authorities knew the identity of the person connected to drug activities and conducted surveillance before making a valid warrantless arrest. Thus, they had a prior justification for being in a position within view of the criminal activity. Had PO2 Cruz and the buy bust team first conducted proper surveillance before proceeding with the warrantless arrest, the subsequent search and seizure may have fallen under the "plain view" doctrine.
As such, the prosecution here failed to establish by sufficient, clear and convincing evidence that there was probable cause to execute a warrantless arrest, and concomitantly seize the confiscated items. It is apparent from their narration that their arrest of the accused-appellants and search thereafter was fueled solely by the informant's tip. Apart from this, there is no evidence to show that the police officers had personal knowledge that would allow them to infer anything suspicious.
There being no valid warrantless arrest on accused-appellants, their arrest is illegal, and the ensuing search as a result thereof, is likewise illegal.74 It must be noted that a person's right against unreasonable searches and seizures is constitutionally protected and must prevail over the campaign against illegal drugs. Warrantless arrests and seizures remain to be exceptions to the general rule and must be construed strictly against government agents.75 Since there is no justification for the absence of an arrest warrant or search warrant upon the premises, the subsequent items obtained from the unreasonable search and seizure must be excluded in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.
The corpus delicti for the crimes charged presented into evidence by the prosecution is deemed inadmissible. Such inadmissibility then prevents conviction and calls for the imm ediate acquittal of the accused-appellants.76"
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAMAL RANGAIG Y AMPUAN, SAAD MAKAIRING Y LONTO, AND MICHAEL JUGUILON Y SOLIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS,
G.R. No. 240447, April 28, 2021.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/apr2021/gr_240447_2021.html
