People v. Aruta - case digest for consti 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

People v Aruta G. No. 120915. April 3, 1998 Romero, J Pet: The People of the Philippines Res: Rosa Menguin Aruta Topic: Search and Seizure FACTS: Rosa Aruta was arrested and charged with violating Sec 4 (Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs), Art II of ...

Description

People v Aruta G.R. No. 120915. April 3, 1998 Romero, J Pet: The People of the Philippines Res: Rosa Menguin Aruta Topic: Search and Seizure FACTS:  Rosa Aruta was arrested and charged with violating Sec 4 (Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs) , Art II of RA 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. She pleaded not guilty upon her arraignment.  Testimonies o P/Lt. Ernesto Abello, Olongapo City Narcotics Command (NARCOM) OIC & P/Lt. Jose Domingo o 12/13/88: Abello tipped off by Benjie (informant) that an Aling Rosa would be arriving from Baguio City with a large volume of Marijuana on 12/14. He then assembled a team of 5 men. o 12/14/88: The team deployed themselves in West Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City.  6:30pm: Aling Rosa got off of a Victory Liner Bus (Body # 474, BGO printed on front & back bumpers) in front of the PNB Bldg where one team was waiting. Informant pointed her out -> team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. When asked about the contents of her bag, Aling Rosa handed it to Abello. Bag was found to contain dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked Cash Katutak.  Upon examination, by the PC/INP Crime Laboratory at Camp Olivas Pampanga, seized specimen was confirmed to be Marijuana.  Defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence, alleging illegality of the search and seizure of the items, thus violating Aling Rosa’s right against unreasonable search and seizure; the defense also alleged the inadmissibility of said evidence o Denied. TC did not rule on illegality of search and seizure & inadmissibility in evidence. TC continued to hear the case.  Aling Rosa’s Testimony: Prior to arrest, she just watched ‘Balweg’ @ Choice Theater. She was about to cross the street when an old woman asked her for help in carrying a shoulder bag. Abello & Domingo then arrested her in the middle of the road & asked her to go with them to the NARCOM office. She averred that she wasn’t shown a search warrant by the 2 officers.  Olongapo City RTC: convicted Aling Rosa of transporting 8.5kg of marijuana from Baguio to Olongapo, violating Sec 4 Art II, RA 6425. ISSUES & RATIO: 1. W/N the NARCOM agents should’ve applied for and used a search warrant – YES.  People v Ramos: law enforcers may only conduct searches only on strength of a search warrant  A3, S2 1of the Constitution: o not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures (SS) – only those that are unreasonable

1 Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

o o

SS are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest Fundamental protection accorded by SS clause in the consti: the magistrate who has the power to issue/refuse warrants.



Stonehill v Diokno: articles from unreasonable SS are INADMISSIBLE as evidence o Later included in A3, S3(2) 2of the Consti. The state cannot intrude indiscriminately into a person’s personal effects, etc.



“The right of a person to be secured against any unreasonable seizure of his body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and fundamental one.” o Statutes, rules, situations that allow exceptions to the requirement of a warrant must be STRICTLY construed and their applications LIMITED to those specified/allowed. (cases specifically allowed by law are listed in the notes �) o



These exceptions do not allow law enforcement officers to step on constitutional/fundamental rights of people against unreasonable SS.

PROBABLE CAUSE (essential requisite) must be satisfied before a warrantless SS can be lawfully conducted, otherwise, articles seized could not be admitted as evidence. o Probable cause requisites  reasonable ground of suspicion/belief that a crim has been/about to be committed  supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves  a cautious/prudent man will believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense if presented with these facts o in determining probable cause, an average man:  weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to rules of evidence – he relies on common sense. o For a search warrant to be issued, there should be substantial evidence that items are  seizable by virtue of being connected to the criminal activity  actually to be found in the place to be searched. o Information can be a sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless SS (examples & how they contrast to instant case in dicta)



SS of Aruta’s belongings doesn’t fall under the exceptions to a valid warrantless SS. o Aruta’s arrest does not qualify as a valid warrantless arrest under Sec 5, Rule 113 ROC 3  She was merely crossing the street & wasn’t acting in a manner that would’ve caused suspicion -> she wouldn’t have been arrested if she hadn’t been pointed out by the informant. Court deems this as a clear violation of Aruta’s right against unreasonable SS.  Since arrest was illegal, subsequent search also ILLEGAL -> evidence inadmissible pursuant to Art3,S3(2), Consti.  “seizure of the fruit of the poisonous tree” (fav metaphor ng ponente) o Not a seizure of evidence in plain view  Marijuana not immediately apparent -> they had to open bag to confirm

2 Section 3(2). Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.

3 Sec. 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;

o

o o

o

Not a search of a moving vehicle  She was apprehended after alighting the bus. She was accosted in the middle of the street.  No cause for her to be stopped and frisked, and she didn’t even attempt to flee when the NARCOM agents introduced themselves (as opposed to what happened in Ppl v Solayao & Posadas v CA) SS not under exigent and emergency circumstances  As opposed to Ppl v De Gracia where there was general chaos & disorder. Aling Rosa handing her bag over -> not consent/voluntary submission/implied acquiescence  SolGen cited Ppl v Malasugui to argue that when Aling Rosa handed her bag, she effectively agreed to the SS, therefore making it valid.  SC: No. Malasugui inapplicable because there was initial probable cause for Malasugui’s warrantless arrest, thus making subsequent SS lawful.  SC: Case similar to People v Encinada, where Encinada’s ‘consent’ “could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.” #SilenceDoesntReallyMeanYes  What constitutes a waiver (Ppl v Barros):  The right exists  person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such right  person had an actual intention to relinquish the right Court does not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights  Ppl v Omaweng: Actual example of case where the accused had an intention to relinquish his right.

SolGen: Police officers could only secure a search warrant if Aruta’s name was known, vehicle identified, and date of her arrival certain o SC: Untenable. Art 4, Sec 3, Consti4  Purpose of rule: to limit the things to be seized o Had the NARCOM agents applied for one, they could have easily secured one.  Person to be searched particularized (Aling Rosa)  Thing to be seized specified (mj)  Time sufficiently ascertained (12/14/88 – afternoon)  Vehicle (Victory Liner Bus)  Agents purposely positioned themselves near the spot where these buses normally unload passengers  Not specifying vehicle -> not a hindrance. Other details wouldve sufficed. (“police should particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized, wherever and whenever it is feasible”)

2. W/N Aruta waived objections to illegality of warrantless search & admissibility of evidence by virtue of entering a plea during arraignment and participating in the trial – NO.  Waiver would apply only to objections pertaining to the illegality of the arrest, and her active participation shows her submission to court’s jurisdiction -> these would not cure the illegality of the search and transform the inadmissible evidence into objects of proof. 4 [N]o search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Records show that Aruta filed a Demurrer to Evidence and objected and opposed the prosecutions Formal Offer of Evidence. People v Barros: “We consider that appellants objection to the admission of such evidence was made clearly and seasonably and that, under the circumstances, no intent to waive his rights under the premises can be reasonably inferred from his conduct before or during the trial.”

RULING: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Olongapo City, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant ROSA ARUTA Y MENGUIN is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED from confinement unless she is being held for some other legal grounds. No costs

Dicta:  Information as a sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless SS (however, the following cases do not apply to the case at bar lol) o People v Tangliben – officers were acting on info to conduct surveillance at the Victory Liner Terminal. A man (later identified as Tangliben) was carrying a bag and acting suspiciously these actuations led the officers to suspect him - so they later confronted him -> turns out he had marijuana in his bag. Officers had no prior info of Tangliben’s activities before that night.  In Aruta, officers had prior info on Aruta’s alleged activities. There is also no indication that Aruta was acting suspiciously. o People v Malmstedt: NARCOM received reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana, and that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had drugs on his person. Agents weren’t able to secure warrants bc there was no reasonable time to get them and the suspect’s identity couldn’t be readily ascertained.  In Aruta, officers had time to obtain warrant, Aruta’s identity already ascertained, and Aruta wasn’t acting suspiciously. Also, Malmstedt was aboard a moving vehicle (incl in the exceptions) while Aruta was just about to cross the street. o People v Bagista: NARCOM agents were again acting on previously received information so they had probable cause to stop & search vehicles coming from the North. They ahd probable cause to search Bagista’s belongings because she fit the description the informant gave.  The case differs from Aruta because Bagista was in a moving vehicle and the police officers were in a checkpoint. o Manalili v CA: Again, NARCOM agents acting on previously received info; conducting surveillance in Kalookan Cemetery. They saw a person who appeared to be high (had reddish eyes, was walking in a swaying manner) and was trying to avoid the policemen. Policemen had probable cause -> Manalili was suspicious + prior info that area was haven for drug addicts

NOTES: 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 vehicles 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;[9] 6. Stop and Frisk;[10] and 7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.[11]...