PEOPLE V. MARI MUSA G.R. No. 96177 January 27, 1993
FACTS:
l NARCOM command leader Jesus Belarga instructed Sgt. Ani to conduct surveillance and test buy on a certain Mari Musa of Suterville, Zamboanga City.
l The informant alleged that Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in said place.
l Sgt. Ani and the civilian informer went to the house of Musa to stand as poseur buyer of Marijuana. In fact, Sgt. Ani was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for P10.00. Thereafter, he returned to T/ Sgt. Belarga for inspection and it was indeed positive as Marijuana.
l Therefore, on the next day, a buy-bust was planned. Sgt. Amado Ani was assigned as the poseur-buyer for which purpose he was given P20.00 by Belarga.
l Sgt. Ani approached Mari Musa, who came out of his house, and asked Ani what he wanted. Ani said he wanted some more stuff. Ani gave Mari Musa the P20.00 marked money. After receiving the money, Mari Musa went back to his house and came back and gave Amado Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried marijuana. Ani opened the two wrappers and inspected the contents. Convinced that the contents were marijuana, Ani walked back towards his companions and raised his right hand. The two NARCOM teams, riding the two civilian vehicles, sped towards Sgt. Ani. Ani joined Belarga's team and returned to the house.
l At the time Sgt. Ani first approached Mari Musa, there were four persons inside his house: Mari Musa, another boy, and two women, one of whom Ani and Belarga later came to know to be Mari Musa's wife. The second time, Ani with the NARCOM team returned to Mari Musa's house, the woman, who was later known as Mari Musa's wife, slipped away from the house. Sgt. Belarga frisked Mari Musa but could not find the P20.00 marked money with him. Mari Musa was then asked where the P20.00 was and he told the NARCOM team he has given the money to his wife (who had slipped away). Sgt. Belarga also found a plastic bag containing dried marijuana inside it somewhere in the kitchen. Mari Musa was then placed under arrest and brought to the NARCOM office.
l Mrs. Athena Elisa P. Anderson, the Forensic Chemist of the PC Crime Laboratory, examined the marijuana specimens subjecting the same to her three tests. All submitted specimens she examined gave positive results for the presence of marijuana.
l Mari Musa denied all the allegations to him.
l The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling marijuana
ISSUE:
WON the plastic containing Marijuana hanging on the kitchen wall may be used as an evidence against the accused
HELD:
NO. In the case at bar, the NARCOM agents searched the person of the appellant after arresting him in his house but found nothing. They then searched the entire house and, in the kitchen, found and seized a plastic bag hanging in a corner.
The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect's lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Objects in the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.
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.
In the instant case, the appellant was arrested and his person searched in the living room. Failing to retrieve the marked money which they hoped to find, the NARCOM agents searched the whole house and found the plastic bag in the kitchen. The plastic bag was, therefore, not within their "plain view" when they arrested the appellant as to justify its seizure. The NARCOM agents had to move from one portion of the house to another before they sighted the plastic bag.
Moreover, when the NARCOM agents saw the plastic bag hanging in one corner of the kitchen, they had no clue as to its contents. They had to ask the appellant what the bag contained. When the appellant refused to respond, they opened it and found the marijuana.
The SC held that under the circumstances of the case, the "plain view" doctrine does not apply and the marijuana contained in the plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be presented in evidence pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution.
However, the exclusion of this particular evidence does not, however, diminish, in any way, the damaging effect of the other pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the appellant sold marijuana.
The SC held that by virtue of the testimonies of Sgt. Ani and T/Sgt. Belarga and the two wrappings of marijuana sold by the appellant to Sgt. Ani, among other pieces of evidence, the guilt of the appellant of the crime charged have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
RTC court decision affirmed.