UNILAB, INC. vs.
ERNESTO ISIP and/or seized, which, when opened contained 60 ml bottles
SHALIMAR PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 163858. June 28, 2005
Facts:
UNILAB hired a private investigator to investigate a
place purported to be manufacturing fake UNILAB
products, especially Revicon multivitamins. The agent
took some photographs where the clandestine
manufacturing operation was taking place. UNILAB
then sought the help of the NBI, which thereafter filed
an application for the issuance of search warrant in
the RTC of Manila. After finding probable cause, the
court issued a search warrant directing the police to
seize “finished or unfinished products of UNILAB,
particularly REVICON multivitamins.” No fake Revicon
was however found; instead, sealed boxes where
of Disudrin and 200mg tablets of Inoflox, both were
brands used by UNILAB. NBI prayed that some of the
sized items be turned over to the custody of the
Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) for examination. The
court granted the motion. The respondents then filed
a motion to quash the search warrant or to suppress
evidence, alleging that the seized items are considered
to be fruit of a poisonous tree, and therefore
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding, which
the petitioners opposed alleging that the boxes of
Disudrin and Inoflox were seized under the plain view
doctrine. The court, however, granted the motion of
the respondents.
Issue:
Whether or not the seizure of the sealed boxes which,
when opened, contained Disudrin syrup and Inoflox,
were valid under the plain view doctrine.
Held:
 the enforcing officers had personal knowledge
whether the sealed boxes and their contents thereof
It is true that things not described in the warrant may
were incriminating and that they were immediately
be seized under the plain view doctrine. However,
apparent. There is even no showing that the NBI
seized things not described in the warrant cannot be
agents knew the contents of the sealed boxes before
presumed as plain view. The State must adduce
they were opened. In sum then, the petitioner and the
evidence to prove that the elements for the doctrine
NBI failed to prove that the plain view doctrine applies
to apply are present, namely: (a) the executing law
to the seized items.
enforcement officer has a prior justification for an
initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position
from which he can view a particular order; (b) the
officer must discover incriminating evidence
inadvertently; and (c) it must be immediately apparent
to the police that the items they observe may be
evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject
to seizure
It was thus incumbent on the NBI and the petitioner to
prove that the items were seized on plain view. It is
not enough that the sealed boxes were in the plain
view of the NBI agents. However, the NBI failed to
present any of officers who were present when the
warrant was enforced to prove that the the sealed
boxes was discovered inadvertently, and that such
boxes and their contents were incriminating and
immediately apparent. It must be stressed that only