Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 125754 December 22, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ZENAIDA BOLASA Y NAKOBOAN and ROBERTO DELOS REYES, accused-appellants.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

An anonymous caller tipped off PO3 Dante Salonga and PO3 Albert Carizon in the early evening of
11 September 1995 that a man and a woman were repacking prohibited drugs at a certain house in
Sta. Brigida St., Karuhatan, Valenzuela, Metro Manila. PO3 Salonga and PO3 Carizon together with
SPO1 Fernando Arenas immediately proceeded to the house of the suspects and parked their car
some three hundred (300) meters away. They walked towards their quarry's lair accompanied this
time by their unnamed informer. When they reached the house they "peeped (inside) through a small
window and . . . saw one man and a woman repacking suspected marijuana." 1They entered the
house and introduced themselves as police officers to the occupants and thereupon confiscated the
tea bags and some drug paraphernalia. They arrested the two (2) who turned out to be the accused
Zenaida Bolasa y Nakoboan and Roberto delos Reyes. Subsequent examination of the tea bags by
NBI Forensic Chemist Rubie Calalo confirmed the suspicion that the tea bags contained marijuana.

Zenaida Bolasa and Roberto delos Reyes were thus charged with violation of Sec. 8, Art. II, of RA
6425 otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Both however denied on the witness
stand ownership over the confiscated tea bags and drug implements.

According to Roberto delos Reyes, he and his wife were merely tenants in the house of Zenaida
Bolasa and at the time he was arrested he had just arrived from work. Upon learning that Zenaida
was repacking marijuana inside their room, he immediately ordered her to leave. Unfortunately
however it was at that precise moment that police authorities entered and announced their presence.
He and Zenaida were then brought to the Valenzuela Police Station for questioning and
subsequently detained.

On the part of Zenaida Bolasa, she narrated that at 7:30 in the evening of 11 September 1995 she
was on her way to 9th Avenue, Caloocan City, where she was working as a waitress. As she was
about to leave the house she met a certain "Rico" and conversed with him for some time. She
denied knowing PO3 Carizon and the fact that the latter saw her repacking marijuana inside her
house.

The trial court upon finding the version of the prosecution to be more plausible convicted both
accused Zenaida Bolasa and Roberto delos Reyes of the crime charged and sentenced each of
them not only to reclusion perpetuabut also to pay a fine of P500,000.00. 2
Both accused appealed, although separately, each one represented by a separate counsel.

Maintaining his innocence in this appeal, accused-appellant Roberto delos Reyes insists he had just
arrived from work and had, in fact, just entered his room when he was arrested. Assuming he was
indeed repacking marijuana when the police officers arrived, he claims it would have been
inconceivable for them to know what he was doing inside his room considering the height of his
window. Significantly, the police officers had to lean first on the window in order to observe the
activities inside the room.

Accused-appellant Zenaida Bolasa meanwhile asserts that the search in her residence was likewise
illegal as her arrest preceding it was illegal. Consequently, the marijuana seized from her could not
be properly used as evidence against her. She insists that the trial court should not have given
credence to the testimony of PO3 Albert Carizon as the same was hearsay. According to her and
her co-accused delos Reyes, PO3 Carizon was not among the arresting officers. As such, PO3
Carizon had no personal knowledge regarding the conduct of the arrest and search thus making his
testimony hearsay. Since the prosecution did not present the two (2) arresting officers the version of
the prosecution cannot stand on its own.

Bolasa likewise impugns the identity of the items confiscated from her person vis-a-vis those which
were submitted for laboratory examination and charges that the failure of the prosecution to
satisfactorily establish the chain of custody over the specimen is damaging to its case.

We sustain the appeal. This case clearly illustrates how constitutional guarantees against illegal
arrests and seizures can be violated by overzealous police officers in the arrest of suspected drug
offenders. Thus, after a meticulous evaluation of the evidence at hand, this Court finds itself with no
other recourse but to strike down the process adopted by the prosecution and acquit accused-
appellants for insufficiency of evidence and reasonable doubt.

Sec. 2, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution provides —

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.

The State cannot in a cavalier fashion intrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into their
houses, papers and effects. The constitutional provision sheathes the private individual with an
impenetrable armor against unreasonable searches and seizures. It protects the privacy and sanctity
of the person himself against unlawful arrests and other forms of restraint, 3 and prevents him from
being irreversibly "cut off from that domestic security which renders the lives of the most unhappy in
some measure agreeable." 4

For sure, this constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures
as it obviously operates only against searches and seizures that are "unreasonable." 5 Thus, arrests
and seizures in the following instances are not deemed "unreasonable" and are thus allowed even in
the absence of a warrant —

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest (Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court and prevailing jurisprudence);
 2. Search of evidence in "plain view." The elements are: (a) a prior valid intrusion
based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the
pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the
police who have the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately
apparent; and, (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further
search.

3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's

inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public
thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause
that the occupant committed a criminal activity;.

4. Consented warrantless search;

5. Customs search;

6. Stop and Frisk; and

7. Exigent and emergency circumstances. 6

An arrest is lawful even in the absence of a warrant: (a) when the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence; (b) when an
offense has in fact been committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and, (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. 7 A
person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be
used as proof of the commission of the offense. 8

The manner by which accused-appellants were apprehended does not fall under any of the above-
enumerated categories. Perforce, their arrest is illegal. First, the arresting officers had no personal
knowledge that at the time of their arrest, accused-appellants had just committed, were committing,
or were about to commit a crime. Second, the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that a
crime was committed nor did they have any reasonable ground to believe that accused-appellants
committed it. Third, accused-appellants were not prisoners who have escaped from a penal
establishment.

Neither can it be said that the objects were seized in plain view. First, there was no valid intrusion.
As already discussed, accused-appellants were illegally arrested. Second, the evidence, i.e., the tea
bags later on found to contain marijuana, was not inadvertently discovered. The police officers
intentionally peeped first through the window before they saw and ascertained the activities of
accused-appellants inside the room. In like manner, the search cannot be categorized as a search of
a moving vehicle, a consented warrantless search, a customs search, or a stop and frisk; it cannot
even fall under exigent and emergency circumstances, for the evidence at hand is bereft of any such
showing.

On the contrary, it indicates that the apprehending officers should have conducted first a surveillance
considering that the identities and address of the suspected culprits were already ascertained. After
conducting the surveillance and determining the existence of probable cause for arresting accused-
appellants, they should have secured a search warrant prior to effecting a valid arrest and seizure.
The arrest being illegal ab initio, the accompanying search was likewise illegal. Every evidence thus
obtained during the illegal search cannot be used against accused-appellants; 9 hence, their acquittal
must follow in faithful obeisance to the fundamental law.

WHEREFORE, the 12 July 1996 Decision of the Regional Trial Court finding accused-appellants
Zenaida Bolasa y Nakoboan and Roberto delos Reyes guilty of violating Sec. 8, Art. II, of RA 6425 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE for insufficiency of evidence and on reasonable doubt; consequently,
both are ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED immediately from confinement unless held for
another lawful cause.

Their Jailers — the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for Zenaida Bolasa y
Nakoboan, and the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for Roberto delos Reyes — are
DIRECTED to implement this Decision immediately and to report to this Court within five (5) days
from receipt hereof their compliance herewith WITHOUT DELAY.

SO ORDERED.

Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Testimony of PO3 Alberto Carizon, TSN, 7 February 1996, p. 3.

2 Decision penned by Judge Adriano R. Osorio, RTC-Br. 171, Valenzuela, Metro Manila,
Records, pp. 60-66.

3 Bernas, Joaquin G., The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A Commentary,
1987, First Ed., pp. 85-86.

4 Infringement and Violations of Rights, enumerated by the Committee of Correspondence

for the Town of Boston, 1772 (The First Assertion By An American Governmental Body of
the People's Right to be Free from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures), cited by Alfred H.
Knight in "The Life of the Law," Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1996 Ed., p. 115.

5 See Note 2.

6 People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915, 3 April 1998, 288 SCRA 637-638.

7 Sec. 6, Rule 113, Rules of Court.

8 Sec. 12, Rule 126, id.

9 Sec. 3(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution.