People v. Bolasa Case Digest

People of the Philippines v. Zenaida Bolasa Facts: An informer told the police that an illegal transaction of prohibited drugs were being conducted at a certain house in Sta. Brigida St. Karuhatan Valenzuela Metro Manila. PO3 Salonga and Carizon together with SPO1 Fernando Arenas immediately proceed to the said house. Upon reaching the house, they peeped through a small window and saw a man and woman repacking suspected marijuana. They enter the house and introduce themselves as police officers and confiscated the tea bag and other drug paraphernalia.Afterwhich, the police officers arrested the two,Zenaida Bolasa and Roberto de los Reyes. Upon examination by the NBI, the tea bags were confirmed as marijuana. Zenaida Bolasa and Roberto de los Reyes were charged with violation of Sec.8 of Article II of Republic Act 6425 otherwise known as Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The RTC convicted them of the crime charged. Accused Bolasa asserts that the search and her arrest was illegal. She insists that the trial court should not regard the testimony of PO3 cCarizon credible because he does not have personal knowledge regarding the conduct of the arrest and search making his testimony a hearsay. Issue: Whether or not the arrest and seizure were valid Ruling: No. The Supreme Court held that the arrest was invalid because the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the time of their arrest, accusedapellants had just committed, were committing or about to commit a crime. The arresting officers also have no personal knowledge that a crime was committed nor have a reasonable ground to believe that the accused committed the crime. And accused appellants were not prisoners who have escaped from a penal establishment. With respect to the seizure of the tea bags,the court held that it is also invalid because the objects were not seized in plain view. There was no valid intrusion and the evidence was not inadvertently discovered. The police officers intentionally peeped through the window to ascertain the activities of appellants inside the room. In like manner, the search cannot be categorized as a search of a moving vehicle, a consented warrantless arrest, a customs search, or a stop and frisk situations. The court stated that the arresting officers should have first conducted a surveillance considering that the identities and addressed of the suspected culprits were already ascertained. After conducting the surveillance and determining the existence of probable cause, they should have secured a warrant prior to effecting a valid arrest and seizure. The arrest being illegal ab initio, the accompanying

search was also illegal. Every evidence thus obtained during the illegal search cannot be used against the accused-appellants. The Court held that the State cannot in a cavalier fashioni ntrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into their houses, papers and effects. The constitutional provision protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself against unlawful arrests and other forms of restraint. The Court held that the State cannot in a cavalier fashioni ntrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into their houses, papers and effects. The constitutional provision protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself against unlawful arrests and other forms of restraint

The Court enumerated the exceptions as follows: 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; 2. Search of evidence in plain view.The elements of the plain view doctrine are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the policeare legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who havethe 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 causethat the occupant committed a criminal activity ;4. Consented warrantless search ;5. Customs search ;6. Stop and Frisk; and 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.

Citing the Rules of Criminal Procedure on lawful warrantless arrest, the Court stated that an arrest is lawful even in theabsence 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 hascommitted 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 toanother. (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