Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
MUSA
G.R. No. 96177 January 27, 1993
Facts:
The appellant, Mari Musa, seeks the reversal of the
decision of the RTC of Zamboanga City finding him guilty
of selling (2) wrappers containing dried marijuana leaves
in violation of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972).
1. A civilian informer gave the information that Mari
Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in
Suterville, Zamboanga City. Sgt. Ani was ordered by
NARCOM leader T/Sgt. Belarga, to conduct a
surveillance and test buy on Musa. The civilian
informer guided Ani to Musas house and gave the
description of Musa. Ani was able to buy one
newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for P10.00.
2. The next day, a buy-bust was planned. Ani was to
raise his right hand if he successfully buys
marijuana from Musa. As Ani proceeded to the
house, the NARCOM team positioned themselves
about 90 to 100 meters away. From his position,
Belarga could see what was going on. Musa came
out of the house and asked Ani what he wanted. Ani
said he wanted more marijuana and gave Musa the
P20.00 marked money. Musa went into the house
and came back, giving Ani two newspaper wrappers
containing dried marijuana. Ani opened and
inspected it. He raised his right hand as a signal to
the other NARCOM agents, and the latter moved in
and arrested Musa inside the house. Belarga frisked
Musa in the living room but did not find the marked
money (gave it to his wife who slipped away). T/Sgt.
Belarga and Sgt. Lego went to the kitchen and
found a cellophane colored white and stripe
hanging at the corner of the kitchen. They asked
Musa about its contents but failed to get a
response. So they opened it and found dried
marijuana leaves inside. Musa was then placed
under arrest.
3. TC found the accused Musa guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
4. In this appeal, the appellant assails the seizure and
admission as evidence of a plastic bag containing
marijuana which the NARCOM agents found in the
appellant's kitchen. It appears that after Sgt. Ani
gave the pre-arranged signal to the other NARCOM
agents, the latter moved in and arrested the
appellant inside the house. They searched him to
retrieve the marked money but didn't find it. Upon
being questioned, the appellant said that he gave
the marked money to his wife. Thereafter, T/Sgt.
Belarga and Sgt. Lego went to the kitchen and
noticed what T/Sgt. Belarga described as a
"cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the
corner of the kitchen." They asked the appellant
about its contents but failing to get a response,
they opened it and found. At the trial, the appellant
questioned the admissibility of the plastic bag and
the marijuana it contains but the trial court issued
an Order ruling that these are admissible in
evidence.
Issues:
1) Is the trial court correct in ruling that the red plastic
bag containing dried marijuana leaves was admissible in
evidence?
2) If No, does the inadmissibility have any effect on the
innocence of Musa?
Held:
1) No. The Constitution declares inadmissible, any
evidence obtained in violation of the freedom from
unreasonable searches and seizures.