QUIZ
CrimPro
1. Accused Chris Fermin was chased and arrested by the police after he had fired a gun
against them. Recovered from him was a bag containing marijuana. Convicted of illegal
possession of drugs, he argued that the marijuana could not be used against him as it was
not seized by virtue of the plain view doctrine, the same being contained inside the bag.
Was Chris’ contention correct?
Answer:
No. Jurisprudence provides that a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest is
reasonable. In this case, as the accused was being lawfully arrested after firing a gun
against police officers, the incidental search is considered reasonable. Chris’ contention
that the marijuana recovered during the incidental search could not be used as evidence
is not correct.
2. The accused was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of possession of shabu. He
appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). And for the first time, on appeal, he
argued that the search warrant was null and void since there was nothing in the records
or evidence to show that the RTC judge who issued the search warrant undertook a
searching personal examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and the
witnesses. The CA ruled that the accused waived the objection to the nullity of the search
warrant when he failed to raised it before the trial court, invoking Section 14 Rule 126.
Was the Court of Appeal’s ruling correct?
Answer: G.R. No. 188794, HONESTO OGA YON y DIAZ, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PIDLIPPINES, Respondent.
No. Jurisprudence provides that a search warrant must conform strictly to the
constitutional requirements for its issuance; otherwise, it is void. As the search warrant
was issued without the requisite examination of the complainant, said search warrant is
null. Because of the nullity of search warrant, the search conducted on its authority is
likewise null and void. Under the Constitution, any evidence obtained in violation of a
person’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding. The Court of Appeals erred on prioritizing compliance with
Rule 126, which is a procedural rule, over the accused’s constitutional right.
3. In a buy-bust operation, the police operatives arrested the accused and seized from him
a sachet of shabu and an unlicensed firearm. Two (2) Informations were filed against the
accused, one for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, and another for illegal possession
of firearms.
The accused filed an action for recovery of the firearm in another court against the
police officers with an application for the issuance of a writ of replevin. He alleged in his
Complaint that he was a military informer who had been issued a written authority to
carry said firearm. The police officers moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
the subject firearm was in custodia legis. The court denied the motion and instead issued
the writ of replevin.
A) Was the seizure of the firearm valid?
B) Was the denial of the motion to dismiss proper?
Answer:
(A) Yes, the seizure of the firearm was valid because it was seized in the course of a valid
arrest in a buy-bust operation. Section 13 of Rule 126 states that a person lawfully arrested
may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. In this case,
because the accused was lawfully arrested, the search was incidental to his arrest and a
warrant was not necessary.
(B) The denial of the motion to dismiss was not proper. In this case, the court where the
action for recovery of the firearm was made is not the court who has jurisdiction over the
criminal action and therefore had no authority to issue the writ of replevin whether the
firearm was in custodia legis or not. The motion to recover the firearm should be filed in
the court where the criminal action is pending.
4. Police officers received a text message that a Dan Nielle Padilla would be transporting
marijuana. Because of this, they put up a check-point. A jeepney was stopped and the
driver signaled to the policeman two passengers, one of whom, Andrew Brillantes, was
carrying a bag. The police officers asked Andrew to open his bag and when he did,
marijuana was found inside. May the marijuana be admitted in evidence against the
accused?
Answer:
No, the marijuana may not be admitted as evidence. Article III, Section 2 of the
Constitution guarantees an individual’s fundamental right against unlawful searches and
seizures. Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution considers any evidence obtained in
violation of this right as inadmissible. Further, jurisprudence provides that a more
extensive and intrusive search that goes beyond a mere visual search of the vehicle
necessitates probable cause on the part of the apprehending officers and that a mere
reception of a text message from an anonymous person does not suffice to create
probable cause. In this case, the text message received by the police officers does not
create probable cause to search beyond plain view and the search and seizure made were
unlawful. Hence, to uphold the constitutional right of the accused, the seized marijuana
may not be admitted as evidence.