1 People v. Rodriguez Dabao

DABAO, ALEXA  Article III. Section 2. Warrantless searches searches and seizures. seizures.

People v. v. Rodriguez - 232 SCRA 227 227 [1994] (GR 79965)

FACTS: Patrolmen Gonzales and Bongalos searched Abrera and Rodriguez without any warrant, due to alleged information from an unidentified telephone caller that someone was selling marijuana inside the Wonder Dog Circus. As Abrera and Rodriguez were found to be acting suspiciously, the patrolmen approached and placed them under arrest. They found marijuana in the pockets of Rodriguez and Abrera voluntarily handed over a plastic tea bag containing marijuana, both of which were turned over for investigation. When investigated, Abrera voluntarily admitted to having possessed the marijuana that was confiscated from him but pointed at Rodriguez as the one who gave him the marijuana and blamed Rodriguez for it. Consequently, Rodriguez was charged with violating Sec. 4, Art. II of RA 6425. However, Abrera was not similarly charged because he was a user, with the police opting not to press any charges against him. ISSUE: W/N the conviction of Rodriguez, based on the marijuana seized by the arresting officers without warrant, was valid. HELD: No. The marijuana confiscated from Rodriguez is inadmissible in evidence for having been taken without a warrant. The SC agrees with the SolGen’s assertion that the prosecution failed to establish that Rodriguez unlawfully sold, distributed and delivered marijuana since the records show that the two prosecution witnesses (Pats. Gonzalez and Bongalos) did not actually see Rodriguez transact any business dealing with marijuana. The person, who is in the  best position to testify whether whether Rodriguez sold marijuana or not, was Abrera, as he was the person whom Rodriguez Rodriguez allegedly dealt with. The SC is placed at a quandary as to why Abrera was not prosecuted together with Rodriguez nor was he made to testify for the prosecution when he was named as one of its witnesses. As testified to be the  prosecution witnesses, witnesses, Abrera Abrera was not similarly charged charged with Rodriguez because Abrera, when investigated, investigated, pointed at Rodriguez as the person who gave him the marijuana. The reliance made by the police investigator on Abrera’s word is simply puzzling. Admittedly, Pat. Gonzalez searched Rodriguez without a warrant. It is contended however that the warrantless search was incidental to a lawful arrest. The arrest of Rodriguez itself was also made without a warrant of arrest. In such a case, the arrest can be justified only if there was a crime committed in the presence of the arrest officers. The arresting officers went to the “Wonder “Wonder Dog Circus” to verify a telephone call that a person with a knapsack had marijuana in his possession. Pat. Gonzalez admitted that they arrested Rodriguez because he acted suspiciously. suspiciously. Pat. Bongalos also admitted in his testimony that he did not personally know whether Rodriguez was in possession of the  prohibited drug. There is no evidence evidence to show that that Rodriguez was was committing any crime at the the time of arrest. arrest. The cardinal rule is that no person may be subjected by the police to a search of his house, body or personal  belonging except by virtue virtue of a search warrant or on the occasion of a lawful lawful arrest. If a person is searched without without a warrant, or under circumstances other than those justifying an arrest without warrant in accordance with law, merely on suspicion that he is engaged in some felonious enterprise, and in order to discover if he has indeed committed a crime, it is not only the arrest which is illegal but also, the search on the occasion thereof as being ‘the fruit from the  poisonous tree.’ The marijuana supposedly confiscated from Rodriguez is therefore inadmissible in evidence for having been taken in violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, the RTC decision convicting Rodriguez is reversed and set aside. Rodriguez is acquitted of the offense charged for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.