Tipped information is sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search
■ Facts: Two weeks before August 13, 1999, policemen received an information that a woman would be traveling with marijuana from Mountain Province to Mabalacat, Pampanga.
At around 5:00 oclock in the morning of August 13, 1999, the informant went to the police headquarters and informed them that the suspect is due to arrive at Sapang Biabas, Mabalacat at 6:00 A.M (just an hour later) that day.
The informant went with the police in the place pointed and he personally identified the woman. They approached the woman. The policemen noticed a protruding marijuana leaves from the sacks of sweet potatoes. The policemen identified themselves and asked the woman to put out the contents of the sack. The sack contains sweet potato with a brick-like substance packed with a masking tape. In plain view of the policemen it was identified to be marijuana. She was arrested and was convicted in the trial court. She argued that the marijuana is inadmissible since the warrantless search is invalid, not having been pursuant to lawful arrest.
Held: The warrantless arrest was lawful because it fell under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This section provides that a peace officer may arrest a person even without a warrant when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense. However, the police officer should be spurred by probable cause in making the arrest. Although the term eludes exact definition, probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious mans belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. The determination of probable cause must be resolved according to the facts of each case. In this case, the arresting officers had probable cause to make the arrest in view of the tip they received from their informant. This Court has already ruled that tipped information is sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search. Although the apprehending officers received the tip two weeks prior to the arrest, they could not be faulted for not applying for a search warrant inasmuch as the exact date of appellants arrival was not known by the informant.
Though all other pertinent details were known by the officers except the date, they could not have applied for a search warrant since the validity of a warrant was only for 10 days. Considering that the officers did not know when the appellant was going to arrive, prudence made them act the way they did. (People vs Ayangao, G.R. No. 142356, April 14, 2004)
Instances where tipped information has become a sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search and seizure.
■ Our jurisprudence is replete with instances where tipped information has become a sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search and seizure.
In People v. Tangliben, two police officers and a barangay tanod were conducting surveillance mission at the Victory Liner terminal compound in San Fernando, Pampanga against persons who may commit misdemeanors and also on those who may be engaging in the traffic of dangerous drugs based on information supplied by informers. At 9:30 in the evening, the policemen noticed a person carrying a red travelling bag who was acting suspiciously. An informer pointed to the accused-appellant as carrying marijuana. They confronted him and requested him to open his bag but he refused. He acceded later on when the policemen identified themselves. Inside the bag were marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper. The police officers only knew of the activities of Tangliben on the night of his arrest. Hence, faced with such on-the-spot tip, the police officers acted quickly as there was not enough time to secure a search warrant.
In People v. Maspil, a checkpoint was set up by elements of the First Narcotics Regional Unit of the Narcotics Command at Sayangan, Atok, Benguet, to monitor, inspect and scrutinize vehicles on the highway going towards Baguio City. This was done because of a confidential report by informers that Maspil and Bagking, would be transporting a large quantity of marijuana to Baguio City. In fact, the informers were with the policemen manning the checkpoint. As expected, at about 2 oclock in the early morning of November 1, 1986, a jeepney approached the checkpoint, driven by Maspil, with Bagking as passenger. The officers stopped the vehicle and saw that on it were loaded 2 plastic sacks, a jute sack, and 3 big round tin cans. When opened, the sacks and cans were seen to contain what appeared to be marijuana leaves. The policemen thereupon placed Maspil and Bagking under arrest, and confiscated the leaves which, upon scientific examination, were verified to be marijuana leaves. The Court upheld the validity of the search thus conducted, as being incidental to lawful warrantless arrest and declared that Maspil and Bagking had been caught in flagrante delicto transporting prohibited drugs.
In People v. Malmstedt, Narcom agents set up checkpoint at Acop, Tublay, Mountain Province in view of reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana. They likewise received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. There was no reasonable time to obtain a search warrant, especially since the identity of the suspect could not be readily ascertained. Accuseds actuations also aroused the suspicion of the officers conducting the inspection aboard the bus. The Court held that in light of such circumstances, to deprive the agents of the ability and facility to act promptly, including a search without a warrant, would be to sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society.
In People v. Bagista, the NARCOM officers had probable cause to stop and search all vehicles coming from the north to Acop, Tublay, Benguet in view of the confidential information they received from their regular informant that a woman having the same appearance as that of accused-appellant would be bringing marijuana from up north. They likewise had probable cause to search accused-appellants belongings since she fitted the description given by the NARCOM informant.
In Manalili v. Court of Appeals, the policemen conducted a surveillance in an area of the Kalookan Cemetery based on information that drug addicts were roaming therein. Upon reaching the place, they chanced upon a man in front of the cemetery who appeared to be high on drugs. He was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying manner. Moreover, he appeared to be trying to avoid the policemen. When approached and asked what he was holding in his hands , he tried to resist. When he showed his wallet, it contained marijuana. The Court held that the policemen had sufficient reason to accost accused-appellant to determine if he was actually high on drugs due to his suspicious actuations, coupled with the fact that based on information, this area was a haven for drug addicts.
As in the instant case, police officer Mariano was tipped off by a civilian asset that a thin Ilocano person with a green bag was about to transport marijuana from Banaue, Ifugao. Said information was received by SPO1 Mariano the very same morning he was waiting for a ride in Banaue to report for work in Lagawe, the capital town of Ifugao province. Thus, face with such on-the-spot information, the law enforcer had to respond quickly to the call of duty. Obviously, there was not enough time to secure a search warrant considering the time involved in the process. In fact, in view of the urgency of the case, SPO1 Mariano together with the civilian asset proceeded immediately to Hingyon, Ifugao to pursue the drug trafficker. In Hingyon, he flagged down buses bound for Baguio City and Manila, and looked for the person described by the informant. It must be noted that the target of the pursuit was just the thin Ilocano person with a green bag and no other. And so, when SPO1 Mariano inspected the bus bound for Manila, he just 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. Hence, appellants claim that the arresting officer was only fishing for evidence of a crime has no factual basis.
Clearly, SPO1 Mariano had probable cause to stop and search the buses coming from Banaue in view of the information he got from the civilian asset that somebody having the same appearance as that of appellant and with a green bag would be transporting marijuana from Banaue. He likewise had probable cause to search appellants belongings since he fits the description given by 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 against appellant. (People vs Samuel Valdez, G.R. No. 127801, March 3, 1999)
■ In those cases where this Court invalidated a warrantless search on the ground that the officers could have applied for a search warrant, the concerned officers received the tip either days prior to the arrival or in the afternoon of a working day. In People vs. Aminudin, this Court found that the officers received the tip two days prior to the actual date of arrival of accused Aminudin. In People vs. Encinadak, the police officers were tipped off at 4:00 P.M. on May 20, 1992 that accused Encinada would arrive at 7:00 A.M. the next day. Thus, the officers had time to obtain search warrants inasmuch as Administrative Circulars 13 and 19 of the Supreme Court allowed the application for search warrants even after office hours. In People vs. Aruta, the police officers received the information on December 13, 1988 that accused Aruta would arrive on a Victory Liner Bus at 6:30 P.M. on December 14, 1999, giving them a day to obtain a warrant. (People vs Ayangao, G.R. No. 142356, April 14, 2004)
■ At around 10:15 a.m. of September 24, 1996, SPO3 Tipay received a tip from an unnamed informer about the presence of a marijuana plantation, allegedly owned by appellant at Sitio Bulan, Ibung, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya. The prohibited plants were allegedly planted close to appellant's hut. A team of operatives was formed to verify the report. The team was instructed to "uproot the marijuana plants and arrest the cultivator of same. At approximately 5:00 o'clock A.M. the following day, said police team, accompanied by their informer, left for the site where the marijuana plants were allegedly being grown.
Appellant contends that there was unlawful search. The records show that the law enforcers had more than ample time to secure a search warrant.
For the appellee, the Office of the Solicitor General argues that the records clearly show that there was no search made by the police team, in the first place. The OSG points out that the marijuana plants in question were grown in an unfenced lot and as each grew about five (5) feet tall, they were visible from afar, and were, in fact, immediately spotted by the police officers when they reached the site. The seized marijuana plants were, thus, in plain view of the police officers. The instant case must, therefore, be treated as a warrantless lawful search under the "plain view" doctrine.
The court a quo upheld the validity of the search and confiscation made by the police team on the finding that:
"...It seems there was no need for any search warrant. The policemen went to the plantation site merely to make a verification. When they found the said plants, it was too much to expect them to apply for a search warrant. In view of the remoteness of the plantation site (they had to walk for six hours back and forth) and the dangers lurking in the area if they stayed overnight, they had a valid reason to confiscate the said plants upon discovery without any search warrant. Moreover, the evidence shows that the lot was not legally occupied by the accused and there was no fence which evinced the occupant's desire to keep trespassers out. There was, therefore, no privacy to protect, hence, no search warrant was required."
The Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure must be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant. Otherwise, the search and seizure is deemed "unreasonable." Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded. Such evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
In the instant case, there was no search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination of the existence of probable cause. From the declarations of the police officers themselves, it is clear that they had at least one (1) day to obtain a warrant to search appellant's farm. Their informant had revealed his name to them. The place where the cannabis plants were planted was pinpointed. From the information in their possession, they could have convinced a judge that there was probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant. But they did not. Instead, they uprooted the plants and apprehended the accused on the excuse that the trip was a good six hours and inconvenient to them. We need not underscore that the protection against illegal search and seizure is constitutionally mandated and only under specific instances are searches allowed without warrants. The mantle of protection extended by the Bill of Rights covers both innocent and guilty alike against any form of high-handedness of law enforcers, regardless of the praiseworthiness of their intentions. (People vs Valdez, G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000)
■ Facts: Two weeks before August 13, 1999, policemen received an information that a woman would be traveling with marijuana from Mountain Province to Mabalacat, Pampanga.
At around 5:00 oclock in the morning of August 13, 1999, the informant went to the police headquarters and informed them that the suspect is due to arrive at Sapang Biabas, Mabalacat at 6:00 A.M (just an hour later) that day.
The informant went with the police in the place pointed and he personally identified the woman. They approached the woman. The policemen noticed a protruding marijuana leaves from the sacks of sweet potatoes. The policemen identified themselves and asked the woman to put out the contents of the sack. The sack contains sweet potato with a brick-like substance packed with a masking tape. In plain view of the policemen it was identified to be marijuana. She was arrested and was convicted in the trial court. She argued that the marijuana is inadmissible since the warrantless search is invalid, not having been pursuant to lawful arrest.
Held: The warrantless arrest was lawful because it fell under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This section provides that a peace officer may arrest a person even without a warrant when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense. However, the police officer should be spurred by probable cause in making the arrest. Although the term eludes exact definition, probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious mans belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. The determination of probable cause must be resolved according to the facts of each case. In this case, the arresting officers had probable cause to make the arrest in view of the tip they received from their informant. This Court has already ruled that tipped information is sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search. Although the apprehending officers received the tip two weeks prior to the arrest, they could not be faulted for not applying for a search warrant inasmuch as the exact date of appellants arrival was not known by the informant.
Though all other pertinent details were known by the officers except the date, they could not have applied for a search warrant since the validity of a warrant was only for 10 days. Considering that the officers did not know when the appellant was going to arrive, prudence made them act the way they did. (People vs Ayangao, G.R. No. 142356, April 14, 2004)
Instances where tipped information has become a sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search and seizure.
■ Our jurisprudence is replete with instances where tipped information has become a sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search and seizure.
In People v. Tangliben, two police officers and a barangay tanod were conducting surveillance mission at the Victory Liner terminal compound in San Fernando, Pampanga against persons who may commit misdemeanors and also on those who may be engaging in the traffic of dangerous drugs based on information supplied by informers. At 9:30 in the evening, the policemen noticed a person carrying a red travelling bag who was acting suspiciously. An informer pointed to the accused-appellant as carrying marijuana. They confronted him and requested him to open his bag but he refused. He acceded later on when the policemen identified themselves. Inside the bag were marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper. The police officers only knew of the activities of Tangliben on the night of his arrest. Hence, faced with such on-the-spot tip, the police officers acted quickly as there was not enough time to secure a search warrant.
In People v. Maspil, a checkpoint was set up by elements of the First Narcotics Regional Unit of the Narcotics Command at Sayangan, Atok, Benguet, to monitor, inspect and scrutinize vehicles on the highway going towards Baguio City. This was done because of a confidential report by informers that Maspil and Bagking, would be transporting a large quantity of marijuana to Baguio City. In fact, the informers were with the policemen manning the checkpoint. As expected, at about 2 oclock in the early morning of November 1, 1986, a jeepney approached the checkpoint, driven by Maspil, with Bagking as passenger. The officers stopped the vehicle and saw that on it were loaded 2 plastic sacks, a jute sack, and 3 big round tin cans. When opened, the sacks and cans were seen to contain what appeared to be marijuana leaves. The policemen thereupon placed Maspil and Bagking under arrest, and confiscated the leaves which, upon scientific examination, were verified to be marijuana leaves. The Court upheld the validity of the search thus conducted, as being incidental to lawful warrantless arrest and declared that Maspil and Bagking had been caught in flagrante delicto transporting prohibited drugs.
In People v. Malmstedt, Narcom agents set up checkpoint at Acop, Tublay, Mountain Province in view of reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana. They likewise received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. There was no reasonable time to obtain a search warrant, especially since the identity of the suspect could not be readily ascertained. Accuseds actuations also aroused the suspicion of the officers conducting the inspection aboard the bus. The Court held that in light of such circumstances, to deprive the agents of the ability and facility to act promptly, including a search without a warrant, would be to sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society.
In People v. Bagista, the NARCOM officers had probable cause to stop and search all vehicles coming from the north to Acop, Tublay, Benguet in view of the confidential information they received from their regular informant that a woman having the same appearance as that of accused-appellant would be bringing marijuana from up north. They likewise had probable cause to search accused-appellants belongings since she fitted the description given by the NARCOM informant.
In Manalili v. Court of Appeals, the policemen conducted a surveillance in an area of the Kalookan Cemetery based on information that drug addicts were roaming therein. Upon reaching the place, they chanced upon a man in front of the cemetery who appeared to be high on drugs. He was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying manner. Moreover, he appeared to be trying to avoid the policemen. When approached and asked what he was holding in his hands , he tried to resist. When he showed his wallet, it contained marijuana. The Court held that the policemen had sufficient reason to accost accused-appellant to determine if he was actually high on drugs due to his suspicious actuations, coupled with the fact that based on information, this area was a haven for drug addicts.
As in the instant case, police officer Mariano was tipped off by a civilian asset that a thin Ilocano person with a green bag was about to transport marijuana from Banaue, Ifugao. Said information was received by SPO1 Mariano the very same morning he was waiting for a ride in Banaue to report for work in Lagawe, the capital town of Ifugao province. Thus, face with such on-the-spot information, the law enforcer had to respond quickly to the call of duty. Obviously, there was not enough time to secure a search warrant considering the time involved in the process. In fact, in view of the urgency of the case, SPO1 Mariano together with the civilian asset proceeded immediately to Hingyon, Ifugao to pursue the drug trafficker. In Hingyon, he flagged down buses bound for Baguio City and Manila, and looked for the person described by the informant. It must be noted that the target of the pursuit was just the thin Ilocano person with a green bag and no other. And so, when SPO1 Mariano inspected the bus bound for Manila, he just 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. Hence, appellants claim that the arresting officer was only fishing for evidence of a crime has no factual basis.
Clearly, SPO1 Mariano had probable cause to stop and search the buses coming from Banaue in view of the information he got from the civilian asset that somebody having the same appearance as that of appellant and with a green bag would be transporting marijuana from Banaue. He likewise had probable cause to search appellants belongings since he fits the description given by 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 against appellant. (People vs Samuel Valdez, G.R. No. 127801, March 3, 1999)
■ In People v. Encinada where the police likewise received confidential information the day before at 4:00 in the afternoon from their informant that Encinada would be bringing in marijuana from Cebu City on board M/V Sweet Pearl at 7:00 in the morning of the following day. This intelligence information regarding the culprits identity, the particular crime he allegedly committed and his exact whereabouts could have been a basis of probable cause for the lawmen to secure a warrant. This Court held that in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 13 and Circular No. 19, series of 1987, the lawmen could have applied for a warrant even after court hours. The failure or neglect to secure one cannot serve as an excuse for violating Encinadas constitutional right. (People vs Aruta, G.R. No. 120915. April 3, 1998)
■ In those cases where this Court invalidated a warrantless search on the ground that the officers could have applied for a search warrant, the concerned officers received the tip either days prior to the arrival or in the afternoon of a working day. In People vs. Aminudin, this Court found that the officers received the tip two days prior to the actual date of arrival of accused Aminudin. In People vs. Encinadak, the police officers were tipped off at 4:00 P.M. on May 20, 1992 that accused Encinada would arrive at 7:00 A.M. the next day. Thus, the officers had time to obtain search warrants inasmuch as Administrative Circulars 13 and 19 of the Supreme Court allowed the application for search warrants even after office hours. In People vs. Aruta, the police officers received the information on December 13, 1988 that accused Aruta would arrive on a Victory Liner Bus at 6:30 P.M. on December 14, 1999, giving them a day to obtain a warrant. (People vs Ayangao, G.R. No. 142356, April 14, 2004)
■ At around 10:15 a.m. of September 24, 1996, SPO3 Tipay received a tip from an unnamed informer about the presence of a marijuana plantation, allegedly owned by appellant at Sitio Bulan, Ibung, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya. The prohibited plants were allegedly planted close to appellant's hut. A team of operatives was formed to verify the report. The team was instructed to "uproot the marijuana plants and arrest the cultivator of same. At approximately 5:00 o'clock A.M. the following day, said police team, accompanied by their informer, left for the site where the marijuana plants were allegedly being grown.
Appellant contends that there was unlawful search. The records show that the law enforcers had more than ample time to secure a search warrant.
For the appellee, the Office of the Solicitor General argues that the records clearly show that there was no search made by the police team, in the first place. The OSG points out that the marijuana plants in question were grown in an unfenced lot and as each grew about five (5) feet tall, they were visible from afar, and were, in fact, immediately spotted by the police officers when they reached the site. The seized marijuana plants were, thus, in plain view of the police officers. The instant case must, therefore, be treated as a warrantless lawful search under the "plain view" doctrine.
The court a quo upheld the validity of the search and confiscation made by the police team on the finding that:
"...It seems there was no need for any search warrant. The policemen went to the plantation site merely to make a verification. When they found the said plants, it was too much to expect them to apply for a search warrant. In view of the remoteness of the plantation site (they had to walk for six hours back and forth) and the dangers lurking in the area if they stayed overnight, they had a valid reason to confiscate the said plants upon discovery without any search warrant. Moreover, the evidence shows that the lot was not legally occupied by the accused and there was no fence which evinced the occupant's desire to keep trespassers out. There was, therefore, no privacy to protect, hence, no search warrant was required."
The Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure must be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant. Otherwise, the search and seizure is deemed "unreasonable." Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded. Such evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
0 Comments
Post a Comment