PEOPLE vs VALDEZ

3.

Nature: This is an appeal on the decision of the RTC finding the accused
Valdez guilty of the crime of illegal transport of marijuana leaves.
Facts:
In the morning of September 1, 1994, SPO1 Mariano was waiting
for a ride to report for work when a civilian asset approached him and
informed him that an Ilocano person was ready to transport marijuana. The
civilian asses described the physical appearance of the suspect as thin and
in possession of a green bag. Together they looked for such person and
boarded and a bus and looked for the person from among the passengers
and noticed him holding a green bag. SPO1 Mariano immediately ordered
him to get out of the bus and once outside, he ordered him to open the bag
and saw a water jug colored red and white and a lunch box which contained
marijuana leaves. SPO1 Mariano turned over the accused to his superior
including the contents of the green bag.
Valdezs contention: He was invited to attend a birthday celebration.
Because of too much intake of liquor (hangover), he felt groggy and sat
alone in a seat near the window. His bag was placed on the right side and
the green bag was place under the seat to the right. Feeling sleepy, he
noticed somebody or a passenger seated beside him but later on noticed
that he was gone and a tap on his shoulder awakened him. He saw two
persons standing and he thought at first that Mariano was the bus inspector
as he was in fatigue uniform. When asked if he was the owner of the bag, he
told them that he didnt know and there was a fellow seated next to him but
was gone. He was forced to declare that he was the owner of the bag and
the two policemen were the ones who opened the bag. The marijuana
allegedly seized from him was a product of an unlawful search, hence,
inadmissible in evidence.
Issue: WON the arrest and the search was illegal and the evidences
obtained were inadmissible?
Held: NO
1.

Accused was caught in flagrante delicto as he was carrying

the marijuana at the time of the arrest

He was actually committing a crime thus, the search made upon

his personal effects falls under the exception of a valid warrantless arrest
(when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense).
2.

There was sufficient probable cause for SPO1 Mariano to

believe that the accused was then and there committing a
crime

Mariano was tipped off by a civilian asset which information was

received by him the very same morning he was waiting for a ride in Banaue
to report for work in Lagawe. Face with such on-the-spot information, the law
enforcer had to respond quickly to the call of duty and there was not enough
time to secure a search warrant considering the time involved in the process.
In view of the urgency of the case, SPO1 Mariano together with the civilian
asset proceeded immediately to the place to pursue the trafficker.
When SPO1 Mariano inspected the bus, he singled out the
passenger with the green bag. Evidently, there was definite information of
the identity of the person engaged in transporting prohibited drugs at a
particular time and place. SPO1 Mariano had already an inkling of the
identity of the person he was looking for. As a matter of fact, no search at all
was conducted on the baggages of other passengers.

SPO1 Mariano had probable cause to stop and search the

buses and the belongings of the accused in view of the
information he got from the civilian asset

The accused fits the description of the civilian asset. Since there
was a valid warrantless search by the police officer, any evidence obtained
during the course of said search is admissible. When Valdez was asked to
get off the bus and bring his bag, he brought with him said bag. If the bag
was not his, he should not have taken it with him in alighting from the bus. An
alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and
self-serving evidence bearing no weight in law.
4.

The presentation of the civilian asset in the prosecution is

not necessary

The settled rule is that the presentation of an informant in illegal

drugs case is not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a
successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative
and cumulative.

PEOPLE vs CHUA HO SAN

Nature: Chua Ho San prays for his acquittal and the reversal of the judgment
of the RTC finding him guilty of transporting, without appropriate legal
authority, the regulated substance methamphetamine hydrochloride in
violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

Gossamer to the officers sense perception and view were CHUA

disembarking from a speedboat, CHUA walking casually towards the road,
and CHUA carrying a multicolored strawbag. These acts did not convey
any impression that he illegally entered Philippine shores. Neither were
these overt manifestations of an ongoing felonious activity nor of CHUAs
criminal behavior as clearly established in CIDs testimony.

Facts:

2nd Issue:

In response to reports of rampant smuggling of firearms and other

contraband, Chief of Police Jim Lagasca Cid of Bacnotan Police Station, La
Union began patrolling the Bacnotan coastline with his officers. While
monitoring the coastal area of Barangay Bulala, he intercepted a radio call at
around 12:45 p.m. from Barangay Captain Juan Almoite of Barangay
Tammocalao requesting for police assistance regarding an unfamiliar
speedboat the latter had spotted. According to Almoite, the vessel looked
different from the boats ordinarily used by fisherfolk of the area and was
poised to dock at Tammocalao shores. Cid and six of his men led by SPO1
Reynoso Badua, proceeded immediately to Tammocalao beach and there
conferred with Almoite. Cid then observed that the speedboat ferried a lone
male passenger, who was later identified as Chua Ho San.
When the speed boat landed, the male passenger alighted,
carrying a multicolored strawbag, and walked towards the road. Upon seeing
the police officers, the man changed direction. Badua held Chuas right arm
to prevent him from fleeing. They then introduced themselves as police
officers; however, Chua did not understand what theyre saying. And by
resorting of sign language, Cid motioned with his hands for the man to
open his bag. The man acceded to the request. The said bag was found to
contain several transparent plastics containing yellowish crystalline
substances, which was later identified to be methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu. Chua was then brought to Bacnotan Police Station, where he was
provided with an interpreter to inform him of his constitutional rights.
Issue:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

WON there was a probable cause? NO

WON there was a valid arrest and search? NO
WON there was a consented search? NO
WON the evidences obtained are admissible? NO

1.

There was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did not
fall under the exemptions allowed by the Rules of Court. The search was
nothing but a fishing expedition. After introducing themselves, the police
officers immediately inquired about the contents of the bag. What else could
have impelled the officers from displaying such inordinate interest in the bag
but to ferret out evidence and discover if a felony had indeed been
committed by CHUA -- in effect to "retroactively establish probable cause and
validate an illegal search and seizure.
3rd Issue:
1.

1.

There was no probable cause

There are no facts on record reasonably suggestive or

demonstrative of CHUAs participation in an ongoing criminal enterprise that
could have spurred police officers from conducting the obtrusive search.
None of the telltale clues such as the bag or package emanating the pungent
odor of marijuana or other prohibited drugs, confidential report and/or
positive identification by informers of courier(s) of prohibited drug etc. which
are accepted by this Court as sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest exists in
this case. There was no classified information that a foreigner would
disembark at Tammocalao beach bearing prohibited drug on the date in
question. A police informer or agent did not identify CHUA as a drug
courier. The fact that the vessel that ferried him to shore bore no
resemblance to the fishing boats of the area did not automatically mark him
as in the process of perpetrating an offense
Despite claims by CID and BADUA that CHUA attempted to flee,
ALMOITE testified that the latter was merely walking and oblivious to any
attempt at conversation when the officers approached him which therefore
cast a serious doubt on the truthfulness of the claim.
2.

Chuas entry in the Philippine territory without visa is of no

moment

There was no consented search on the part of Chua to

constitute a waiver of his right

Requisites to a valid waiver:

a.
b.
c.

It must appear that the right exists;

That the person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive,
of the existence of such a right; and
That said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right

CHUA never exhibited that he knew, actually or constructively of

his right against unreasonable searches or that he intentionally conceded the
same.
2.

Held:
1st Issue

The search is not incidental to arrest; a valid arrest must

precede the search. The process cannot be reversed.

There was no consented search which can be inferred from

the manner the search was performed

CHUA obviously failed to understand the events that overran and

overwhelmed him. The police officers already introduced themselves to
CHUA in three languages, but he remained completely deadpan. The police
hence concluded that CHUA failed to comprehend the three
languages. When CHUA failed to respond again to the polices request to
open the bag, they resorted to what they called sign language. They
claimed that CHUA finally understood their hand motions and gestures. If
CHUA could not understand what was orally articulated to him, how could he
understand the polices sign language. More importantly, it cannot
logically be inferred from his alleged cognizance of the sign language
that he deliberately, intelligently, and consciously waived his right
against such an intrusive search.
4th Issue:
1.

The evidences obtained are inadmissible

Evidence obtained during an illegal search even if tending to

confirm or actually confirming initial information or suspicion of felonious
activity is absolutely considered inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding being the fruit of a poisonous tree. The case at bar is one of
"forbidden fruits" which did not confirm any initial suspicion of criminal
enterprise because the police admitted that they never harbored any
initial suspicion. Casting aside the regulated substance as evidence, the

remaining evidence on record is insufficient, feeble and ineffectual to sustain

CHUAs conviction.
2.

The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches

and seizures cannot be so carelessly disregarded, as
overzealous police officers are sometimes wont to do

"There are those who say that 'the criminal is to go free

because the constable has blundered.' In some cases this will
undoubtedly be the result. But 'there is another consideration -- the
imperative of judicial integrity.' The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is
the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly
than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter
of its own existence. (For the char. Haha. )