People vs. Nuevas

A warrantless search and seizure is invalid unless it falls under a recognized exception, and evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional guarantee is inadmissible; a consented search requires the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence that consent was voluntary, unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given. Mere looking into a bag held by another does not amount to possession or establish conspiracy to possess illegal drugs.

Jesus Nuevas y Garcia, Reynaldo Din y Gonzaga, and Fernando Inocencio y Abadeos were separately charged before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 75, with illegal possession of marijuana under Section 8, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. Nuevas was charged with possession of approximately 1.5 kilos of marijuana; Din and Inocencio were charged with conspiring to possess approximately 2.5 kilos. Because the evidence was common and the prosecution would present the same witnesses, the cases were consolidated for joint trial. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures and the exclusionary rule under Article III, Sections 2 and 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution supplied the controlling legal backdrop.

In the morning of 27 September 1997, PO3 Teofilo B. Fami and SPO3 Cesar B. Cabling conducted a stationary surveillance and monitoring of illegal drug trafficking along Perimeter Street, Barangay Pag-asa, Olongapo City. They had received information that a male person, more or less 5’4" in height, 25 to 30 years old, with a tattoo mark on the upper right hand, and usually wearing a sando and maong pants, would make a delivery of marijuana dried leaves. While stationed there, they saw a male person who fit the description, carrying a plastic bag, later identified as Jesus Nuevas, alight from a motor vehicle. They accosted Nuevas and informed him that they were police officers. Fami asked Nuevas where he was going; Nuevas answered arrogantly but afterwards calmed down. Nuevas and Fami conversed in the Waray dialect. Nuevas informed him that there were other stuff in the possession of a certain Vangie, an associate, and two other male persons. Later on, Nuevas voluntarily pointed to the police officers a plastic bag which, when opened, contained marijuana dried leaves and bricks wrapped in a blue cloth. Shortly thereafter, in his bid to escape charges, Nuevas disclosed where the two other male persons would make the delivery of marijuana weighing more or less five kilos.

Fami and Cabling, together with Nuevas, then proceeded to Purok 12, Old Cabalan, Olongapo City, which according to Nuevas was where his two companions, Din and Inocencio, could be located. From there, they saw and approached two persons along the National Highway, introducing themselves as police officers. Din was carrying a light blue plastic bag. When asked, Din disclosed that the bag belonged to Nuevas. Fami then took the bag and upon inspection found inside it marijuana packed in newspaper and wrapped therein. After confiscating the items, Fami and Cabling brought Nuevas, Din, and Inocencio to the police office at Purok III for proper documentation. Fami further testified that a receipt for the property seized was issued by Cabling, that a field test was conducted on the confiscated items, that all three accused were physically examined with corresponding medical certificates issued, and that booking sheets, an arrest report, and a joint affidavit were accomplished. On cross-examination, Fami revealed that when the receipt of evidence seized was prepared, all three accused were not represented by counsel; he also escorted all the accused during their physical examination and to the Fiscal’s office. Cabling corroborated Fami’s testimony but testified that after he and Fami had introduced themselves as police officers, Din and Inocencio voluntarily handed to Fami the marijuana dried leaves. On cross-examination, Cabling testified that the arrest of Nuevas was the result of a tip from Fami’s informant, conceding that the name of Nuevas was not included in the list of persons under surveillance; Fami then relayed the tip to Cabling. Cabling restated that Nuevas had voluntarily submitted the plastic bag he was holding and that after Nuevas had been informed of the violation of law attributed to him, he admitted his willingness to cooperate and point to his other cohorts. When Fami and Cabling proceeded to the identified location of Nuevas’s cohorts, they chanced upon Din and Inocencio along the road; Din was holding a bag while Inocencio was looking into its contents. Cabling averred that Din voluntarily handed the plastic bag he was holding to the police officers.

For his defense, Nuevas testified that in the morning of 27 September 1997, he was walking along Perimeter Street, on his way home from the Barangay Hall, when Fami called him. Nuevas approached Fami, who was then in front of his house, and asked why Fami had called him. Fami poked his gun at Nuevas and asked him to go inside the room, where Fami handcuffed Nuevas’s hands, got Nuevas’s wallet, took out ₱1,500.00, and put it in Fami’s wallet. Fami then confronted Nuevas with shabu use, but the latter denied the charge. Before leaving the house with Nuevas, Fami brought out a plastic bag and told Nuevas to carry it. Subsequently, they boarded a red owner-type jeep and proceeded to Station B, where Nuevas was put in jail. Nuevas further stated that he did not know Din or Inocencio.

Din, on the other hand, stated that at about 10 o’clock in the morning of 27 September 1997, while his ‘compare’ Inocencio was visiting, two men entered his house looking for a woman. The two introduced themselves as police officers. Then, Din and Inocencio were immediately handcuffed. They were not informed of the reason for their arrest and were told that the reason would be explained to them in court. Next, they were brought to the Cabalan precinct, where the investigator asked for their names, and subsequently to Station B, where they were ordered to stand up and be photographed with Nuevas, whom Din first met in jail. Inside the room where they had their fingerprints taken, he saw marijuana placed on top of the table. Inocencio testified that he went to his ‘compadre’ Din’s house in the morning of 27 September 1997 to sell his fighting cocks as he needed money to redeem his driver’s license. While there, he and Din were arrested by two persons, one of whom pointed a gun at them while the other searched the house for a lady named Vangie. Afterwards, he and Din were brought to the Cabalan Police Precinct and then to Station B, where he first came to know Nuevas. He denied that a plastic bag containing marijuana was recovered from them and claimed that he only saw such evidence on the day he gave his testimony. He also stated that when a photograph was taken of the three of them, he and Din were ordered to point to a "wrapped thing." When the photograph was taken, they were not assisted by counsel. He also did not recall having signed a receipt of property seized. Afterwards, they were brought to a detention cell, and when they asked the police what they did wrong, the police replied that they would just explain it in court.

The trial court credited the prosecution’s account and found all three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, the Court of Appeals likewise gave great weight to the trial court’s assessment of Fami and Cabling’s credibility and found their version of how appellants were apprehended to be categorical and clear. It found that Din, at the time of his apprehension, was seen holding a plastic bag containing marijuana leaves, and that Inocencio’s possession of the marijuana leaves was established by the fact that he was seen in the act of looking into the plastic bag carried by Din.

• Insufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Appellants Din and Inocencio argued that the trial court erred in finding them guilty of the crime charged on the basis of the testimonies of the arresting officers.
• Constitutional Violations: Appellants argued that the trial court erred in not finding that their constitutional rights had been violated, maintaining that there was no basis for their questioning and the subsequent inspection of the plastic bags of Nuevas and Din, as they were not doing anything illegal at the time.

• Waiver of Arrest Defects: The prosecution insisted that appellants had effectively waived any defect in their arrest by entering their plea and by their active participation in the trial of the case.

• Validity of Warrantless Searches: Whether the warrantless searches and seizures conducted by the police officers were valid under any of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.
• Consented Search (Din): Whether Reynaldo Din voluntarily consented to the search of the plastic bag allegedly in his possession.
• Inocencio’s Possession and Conspiracy: Whether Fernando Inocencio’s act of looking into the plastic bag carried by Din established illegal possession of marijuana or conspiracy to possess the same.
• Admissibility of Evidence: Whether the marijuana seized during the warrantless searches was admissible in evidence against Din and Inocencio.
• Waiver by Plea and Trial Participation: Whether appellants waived the inadmissibility of the evidence seized during the illegal warrantless search by entering a plea and actively participating in the trial.

• Validity of Warrantless Searches: No. The searches did not fall under search incidental to a lawful arrest or the plain view doctrine; the police had no probable cause, and the marijuana was inside closed packages not plainly visible.
• Consented Search (Din): No. The prosecution failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Din voluntarily, unequivocally, specifically, and intelligently consented; the police testimonies were inconsistent, and silence is not acquiescence.
• Inocencio’s Possession and Conspiracy: No. Mere looking into a bag held by another is not possession and does not prove knowledge or conspiracy to possess illegal drugs.
• Admissibility of Evidence: No. Evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional guarantee is inadmissible; without it, conviction cannot be sustained.
• Waiver by Plea and Trial Participation: No. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not waive the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.

• Validity of Warrantless Searches: The Constitution requires a search and seizure to be carried through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise, the search and seizure becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The constitutional proscription is not absolute but admits of exceptions: (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; (2) search of evidence in plain view; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. The searches and seizures in this case did not fall under the first exception because a search incidental to a lawful arrest requires that the arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed as in this case where the search preceded the arrest. A search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest only if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. Here, Nuevas, Din, and Inocencio were not committing a crime in the presence of the police officers, and Fami and Cabling did not have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the persons to be arrested had committed an offense. Reliable information alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113; the rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform some overt act indicating that he has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Neither could the searches be justified under the plain view doctrine. An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and cannot be seized without a warrant, unless the package proclaims its contents by its distinctive configuration, transparency, or obviousness to an observer. Here, the dried marijuana leaves were inside plastic bags that Nuevas and Din were carrying and were not readily apparent or transparent to the police officers; in Nuevas’s case, the leaves were wrapped inside a blue cloth, and in Din’s case, the marijuana was packed in newspaper and wrapped therein. The items were therefore not in plain view.

• Consented Search (Din): The constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right that may be waived, but the consent to the search must be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal detention and search; it must be unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred but must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The State bears the burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained and freely and voluntarily given. In Nuevas’s case, the Court was convinced that he voluntarily surrendered the incriminating bag to the police officers; he cooperated with the police, gave them the plastic bag, and even revealed his associates, consistent with the human inclination to find excuses and save oneself. Thus, the Court would have affirmed Nuevas’s conviction had he not withdrawn his appeal. In Din’s case, however, no such consent had actually been given. Fami testified that Din said the bag was owned by Nuevas and that Fami took the plastic bag; Cabling, however, testified that Din and Inocencio voluntarily surrendered to Fami the marijuana dried leaves. These inconsistent and dissimilar testimonies raised serious doubts on the voluntariness of Din’s submission of the plastic bag. The prosecution failed to clearly show that Din intentionally surrendered his right against unreasonable searches. There was no mention of any permission made by the police officers to get or search the bag, or of any consent given by Din for the officers to search it. In cases where the Court upheld the validity of consented searches, the police authorities expressly asked, in no uncertain terms, for the consent of the accused to be searched, and the consent was established by clear and positive proof. Din’s silence at the time could not be construed as implied acquiescence to the warrantless search; under People vs. Burgos, peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not consent or an invitation thereto but merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law.

• Inocencio’s Possession and Conspiracy: Inocencio’s supposed possession of the dried marijuana leaves was sought to be shown through his act of looking into the plastic bag that Din was carrying. Taking a look at an object, more so peeping into a bag while held by another, is not the same as taking possession thereof; to behold is not to hold. The act attributed to Inocencio is insufficient to establish illegal possession of the drugs or even conspiracy to illegally possess the same. The prosecution failed to show by convincing proof that Inocencio knew of the contents of the bag and that he conspired with Din to possess the illegal items. Inocencio was firm and unshakeable in his testimony that he had no part in any delivery of marijuana dried leaves.

• Admissibility of Evidence: Without the dried marijuana leaves as evidence, Din’s conviction cannot be sustained based on the remaining evidence. The conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution. As such, Din deserves an acquittal. The acquittal is warranted despite the prosecution’s insistence that the appellants had effectively waived any defect in their arrest by entering their plea and by their active participation in the trial. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. In spite of any alleged waiver, the dried marijuana leaves cannot be admitted in evidence against the appellants, Din more specifically, as they were seized during a warrantless search which was not lawful.

• Waiver by Plea and Trial Participation: A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. The prosecution’s theory of waiver by plea and trial participation therefore did not cure the inadmissibility of the seized marijuana. The evidence remained inadmissible against Din and Inocencio, and without it, their convictions could not stand.

• Warrantless search and seizure; exceptions — The Constitution requires a judicial warrant for searches and seizures; otherwise, the search and seizure is unreasonable and the evidence obtained is inadmissible. The recognized exceptions are: (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; (2) plain view; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. The Court found none justified the searches of Din and Inocencio.
• Search incidental to a lawful arrest — A search incidental to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court, but the arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed. A search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest only if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. Reliable information alone is insufficient under Section 5(a), Rule 113; the accused must perform some overt act indicating that he has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Applied: no crime was committed in the presence of the police, the officers had no personal knowledge of facts indicating an offense, and no overt act was shown.
• Plain view doctrine — An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and cannot be seized without a warrant, unless the package proclaims its contents by its distinctive configuration, transparency, or obviousness to an observer. The elements include a prior valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest, inadvertent discovery, immediate apparentness, and justification for mere seizure without further search. Applied: the marijuana was wrapped in a blue cloth and in newspaper, not readily apparent or transparent to the police officers.
• Consented warrantless search — Consent to a search is a waiver of a personal constitutional right. To be valid, it must be voluntary, unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. It is not lightly inferred but must be shown by clear and convincing evidence, and the State bears the burden of proving it by clear and positive testimony. Silence or peaceful submission is not consent. Applied: Nuevas voluntarily surrendered the bag, but Din did not give valid consent; the police testimonies were inconsistent, and no permission or intentional relinquishment was shown.
• Exclusionary rule — Evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest. Applied: the marijuana seized from Din and Inocencio was inadmissible, and without it, their convictions could not be sustained.
• Possession and conspiracy in illegal drugs — Mere looking into a bag held by another is not the same as taking possession thereof; to behold is not to hold. Conspiracy must be proven by convincing evidence of knowledge of the illegal contents and a common design to possess the same. Applied: Inocencio’s act of looking into Din’s bag was insufficient to establish illegal possession or conspiracy.
• Strength of the prosecution’s evidence — The conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution. Applied: without the dried marijuana leaves as evidence, Din’s conviction could not be sustained based on the remaining evidence.

• "A search incidental to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. Recent jurisprudence holds that the arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed as in this case where the search preceded the arrest. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search." — States the controlling rule on search incidental to a lawful arrest and explains why the search in this case could not be justified under that exception.
• "The consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but must be shown by clear and convincing evidence." — Articulates the canonical evidentiary standard for a valid consented warrantless search, which the prosecution failed to satisfy as to Din.
• "Taking a look at an object, more so in this case peeping into a bag while held by another, is not the same as taking possession thereof. To behold is not to hold." — Defines the Court’s ratio for acquitting Inocencio: mere observation of another’s bag does not constitute possession or conspiracy to possess illegal drugs.
• "A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest." — Rejects the prosecution’s waiver theory and confirms that the exclusionary rule continues to bar the seized marijuana despite the accused’s plea and trial participation.

• People vs. Tudtud, 458 Phil. 752, 771 (2003) — Cited for the exceptions to the warrant requirement and for the rule that a search incidental to a lawful arrest requires the arrest to precede the search, unless the police had probable cause at the outset. Followed.
• Caballes vs. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 263, 278 (2002) — Cited for the principle that what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search is a judicial question determinable from the circumstances, and for the requirements of a valid consented search. Followed.
• People vs. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 634-635 (1999) — Cited for the plain view doctrine and the rule that an object inside a closed package is not in plain view unless the package proclaims its contents. Followed.
• People vs. Burgos, 228 Phil. 1 (1986) — Cited for the rule that peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not consent or an invitation thereto, but merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. Followed.
• People vs. Kimura, G.R. No. 130805, 27 April 2004, 428 SCRA 51, 70 — Cited for the rule that conviction must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution. Followed.
• People vs. Bacla-an, 445 Phil. 729, 748 (2003) — Cited for the rule that a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. Followed.
• People vs. Encinada, 345 Phil. 301, 323 (1997) — Cited for the Court’s exhortation to law enforcers to act within the parameters of the Constitution and the law, and that the end never justifies the means. Followed.
• People vs. Efren Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640 — Cited as the basis for transferring the cases to the Court of Appeals. Followed.

• Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires a search warrant or warrant of arrest issued upon probable cause determined personally by the judge. Applied: the warrantless searches of Din and Inocencio failed to satisfy this requirement.
• Article III, Section 3(2), 1987 Constitution — Provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Applied: the marijuana seized from Din and Inocencio was inadmissible, necessitating their acquittal.
• Section 8, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended — Defines the crime of illegal possession of marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Applied: this was the crime charged against Nuevas, Din, and Inocencio.
• Rule 126, Section 13, Rules of Court — Allows a person lawfully arrested to be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. Applied: the search could not be justified under this provision because the arrest did not lawfully precede the search.
• Rule 113, Section 5(a), Rules of Court — Allows a peace officer or private person to arrest without a warrant when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Applied: reliable information alone was insufficient; an overt act was required and absent.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Chairperson), Antonio T. Carpio, Conchita Carpio Morales, and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. concurred in the decision. No separate concurring opinions are summarized in the text.