This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-07-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Neither can we sustain appellants' erroneous invocation of the "plain view doctrine." The "plain view" doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.[9] It finds no application where the appellants, as in this case, are caught in the act of committing a crime. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of the buy-bust operation, the police are not only authorized but are even duty- bound to arrest them even without a warrant. | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, we find the trial court's reliance on the plain view doctrine misplaced. Such doctrine finds application only when the incriminating nature of the object is in the "plain view" of the police officer.[15] Here, it is beyond cavil that the marijuana seized from appellant is contained in the box of piaya, wrapped in aluminum foil and not immediately apparent to the airport authorities. | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Finally, the seized marijuana was not mentioned in the search warrant issued for the search of appellant's house. The seizure by the police officers conducting the search of articles not described in the search warrant was beyond the parameters of their authority under the search warrant. Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution requires that a search warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized. The evident purpose and intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant, to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made and that abuses may not be committed.[20] Neither can the admissibility of such seized items be justified under the plain view doctrine, for the bricks of marijuana in this case were found not inadvertently or in plain view. Rather, they were found after a meticulous search under the bed, wrapped in a newspaper and inside a plastic bag. In People v. Musa,[21] the marijuana recovered by NARCOM agents was declared inadmissible because the said drugs were contained in a plastic bag which bore no indication of its contents. | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There are eight (8) instances where a warrantless search and seizure is valid. They are: (1) consented searches;[57] (2) as an incident to a lawful arrest;[58] (3) searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws;[59] (4) searches of moving vehicles;[60] (5) searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; (6) where the prohibited articles are in "plain view;"[61] (7) searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and (8) "stop and frisk" operations.[62] | |||||