TITLE: People v.

Baula
GR No. 132671
FACTS: After the gruesome killing of Patronicia Caburao, the investigating police went to the
residence of the accused-appellant, Baula et al.
In the process of questioning the appellants, the police saw bloodstained bolo, short
pants, polo shirts and was subsequentlyconfiscated without search warrant and directed to the
NBI for forensic exams. The exam resulted that the bloods found in theconfiscated articles bears
the same blood type O as that of the victim.
Thus, the accused were arrested, charged and was convicted in the crime of murder by the
RTC Lingayen and sentenced to sufferRP. Hence this appeal for review on the decision of the
lower court in the ground that the articles sought (bloodstained bolo, shirt and shortpants) cannot
be admitted as evidence against the accused since it was seized without a valid search and
seizure warrant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless search conducted was valid under a consented search.
HELD: The articles are unlawfully searched and seized.
A search incidental to a valid arrest is one of the statutory exceptions to the constitutional
mandate that no search and seizure shallbe effected without a valid warrant. In this instance, the
arrest should be lawful before search and seizure by the arresting officerwould be conducted. A
warrantless arrest may be effected by the arresting officer when in his presence the person
arrested is havecommitted, committing or attempting to commit the crime. It cannot be reversed;
otherwise, it would unlawful and unconstitutionaland the seized article would be inadmissible
evidence.
In the case at bar, Accused-appellants were not being arrested at the time that the subject articles
were allegedly taken from thembut were just being questioned by the police officers conducting
the investigation about the death of Patrocinia Caburao. Theinvestigating officers had no
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed the crime. Being in no
positionto effect a warrantless arrest, the police officers were thus likewise barred from effecting
a warrantless search and seizure.
An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an arrest effected on the strength of the evidence
yielded by that search.
The Court finds it less than credible the stance of the prosecution that the polo shirt and short
pants have been voluntarily given. An alleged consent to a warrantless search and seizure cannot
be based merely on the presumption of regularity in the performanceof duty. This presumption,
by itself, cannot prevail against the constitutionally protected rights of an individual, and zeal in
thepursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the Constitution itself
abhors.
Thus, the bloodstained polo, bolo and shorts are inadmissible as evidence.