011 PEOPLE v.
ARUTA (MATSUMURA) offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought
3 April 1998 | Romero, J. | Searches and Seizures
PETITIONER: The People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS: Rosa Aruta y Menguin
SUMMARY: On December 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello (OIC of NARCOM) was
tipped off that a certain “Aling Rosa” would arrive from Baguio the
following day bringing prohibited drugs –marijuana. Pursuant to this, a team
was conducted where half the team were stationed at the PNB Building, and
the other half near Caltex Gasoline Station in Pampanga. At 6:30PM, a
Victory Liner Bus arrived. 2 females and 1 male alighted the bus. The
informant, who was with the PNB group, pointed to Aruta saying that this
was “Aling Rosa”. Abello then went to Aruta asking to see the contents of
her bag. Aruta handed over the bag, and inside contained dried marijuana
leaves packed in a small plastic bag labeled “Cash Katutak”. The team
confiscated the marijuana leaves and her bus ticket, and brought it for
examination. The Forensic chemist reported that it was indeed marijuana.
Thus, Aruta was arrested and charged for violating the dangerous drugs act.
Aruta avers that she came from the Choice Theatre where she watched
“Balweg” and was about to cross the street when an old woman asked for her
help in carrying her bag. While she was crossing, Abello arrested her. Thus,
Aruta is claiming that her right against unreasonable searches and seizures
was violated.
The RTC found Aruta guilty of the crime. Hence, this case. The issue is
whether the search of her bag was a valid warrantless search and seizure. The
SC ruled in the NEGATIVE.
The right to be secured against any unreasonable seizure of his body and
deprivation of liberty is a most basic and fundamental right. Thus, a warrant
of arrest is necessary. However, there are certain cases where a warrantless
arrest or warrantless search and seizure is valid namely: warrantless search
incidental to lawful arrest; plain view doctrine;search of a moving vehicle;
customs search; consented warrantless search; stop and frisk; and exingent
and emergency circumstances. Note however that the essential requisite of
probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure
can be lawfully conducted.
By probable cause, this means existence of such facts and circumstances
which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is
in the place to be searched. The surrounding circumstances is taken into
account.
Here, none of the exceptions for warrantless search and seizure was
complied with because there was no probable cause in the first place. Aruta
cannot be said to be committing a crime, nor about to or just committed one.
She was merely crossing the street. She was not acting in any manner that
would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect the
commission of a crime. It was only when the informant pointed at Aruta that
she was singled out as a suspect. She would not have been apprehended if it
were not for the furtive finger of the informant.
Thus, none of the exceptions apply to this case.
1. Incidental to lawful arrest – There was no lawful arrest. Again, Aruta
cannot be said to be committing a crime, nor about to or just
committed one. She was merely crossing the street.
2. Plain view doctrine - The marijuana was obviously not immediately
apparent as shown by the fact that the NARCOM agents still had to
request Aruta to open the bag to ascertain its contents.
3. Search of a moving vehicle – There was no moving vehicle to speak
of. Aruta was apprehended several minuted AFTER alighting from
the Victory Liner bus.
4. Stop and frisk – There was no observable manifestation that could
have aroused the suspicion of the NARCOM agents as to cause them
to “stop and frisk” Aruta. She was merely crossing the street. She
never even attempted to flee from the NARCOM agents.
5. Exigent and emergency circumstances – the circumstances do not
show that a crime was being committed.
6. Consented warrantless search -- There must be actual intention to
relinquish the right, but such was not found in this case. Aruta’s act
of handing over her bag could not be construed as voluntary
submission. The rule is that courts indulge every reasonable
presumption AGAINST waiver.
DOCTRINE: The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied
before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted.
FACTS:
1. On December 13, 1988, P/Lt. Ernesto Abello (Officer-in-Charge of
 the Narcotics Command of Olongapo City) was tipped off by his
informant, Benjie, that a certain “Aling Rosa” would be arriving
from Baguio City the following day with a large volume of
marijuana.
2. Acting on the tip, Abello assembled a team composed of P/Lt Jose
Domingo, Sgt Angel Sudiaca, Sgt Oscar Imperial, Sgt Danilo
Santigao and Sgt Efren Quirubin.
3. At around 4PM of December 14, the team went to West Bajac-Bajac
in Olangapo City. They divided the team into 2:
a. Group 1: P/Lt Abello, P/Lt. Domingo, and the informat –
they posted themselves near the PNB Building along Rizal
Avenue
b. Group 2: Sgt Sudiaca, Imperial, Santiago, and Quirubin –
they posted themselves near the Caltex Gasoline Station
4. At 6:30PM, a Victory Liner Bus with body number 474 and letters
BGO printed on its front and back bumpers stopped in front of the
PNB building. Thereafter, two females and one male got off the bus.
5. The informant pointed out to the team “Aling Rosa”(Aruta)
who was carrying a travel bag. Thus, the team approached her and
introduced themselves as NARCOM agents.
6. P/Lt Abello asked Aling Rosa the contents of her bag. Aling Rosa
then handed her bag over to Abello. Upon inspection, the bag
contained dried marijuana leaved packed in a small plastic bag
marked “Cash Katutak”.
7. The team confiscated the bag and Aling Rosa’s victory liner bus
ticket to which Lt/ Domingo affixed his signature.
8. Aling Rosa was then brought to the NARCOM office for
investigation where a receipt of property seized was prepared for
the confiscated marijuana leaves.
9. Upon examination of the leaves, P/Maj. Marlene Salangad –the
forensic chemist at the Crime Laborartory in Camp Olivas,
Pampanga –prepared a technical report stating that the specimen
yielded positive results for marijuana.
10. Rosa Aruta Menguin (Aruta) was thereafter arrested and charged for
violating Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Acts when she
transported 8 kilos and 500 grams of dried marijuana packed in a
plastic bag marked “Cash Katutak”.
11. This case was brought to the RTC of Olangapo City. During
arraignment she pleaded not guilty.
12. For the prosecution, they presented
a. the testimonies were of:
i. P/Lt. Ernesto Abello (Officer-in-Charge of the
Narcotics Command of Olongapo City)
ii. P/LT. Jose Domingo
b. Technical report (in Fact #9)
13. Aling Rosa filed a demurrer to evidence arguing that the search and
seizure of the items were illegal and a violation of her constitutional
right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
a. The demurrer was denied by the RTC. The court did not rule
on the legality of the search, and instead continued to hear
the case.
[Aruta’s version of the Story]
14. According to Aling Rosa, she just came from Choice Theatre where
she watched the movie “Balweg”. While she was about to cross the
road, an old woman asked her help in carrying her shoulder bag.
Thereafter, Lt. Abello and Lt. Domingo arrested her in the middle of
the road and asked her to go with them to the NARCOM Office.
15. During investigation at the NARCOM Office, she claimed that she
had no knowledge who the other woman was, and avered that the old
woman was nowhere to be found after she was arrested.
16. She also claimed that the police had no search warrant.
17. [RTC RULING] The RTC ruled that Aruta was guilty of the crime,
and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.
18. Hence, this case.
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether search and seizure was valid –NO because there was no
probable cause. It was only when the informant pointed at Aruta that
she was singled out as a suspect, she was not acting in a suspicious
manner
RULING: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Olongapo City, is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to establish her guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, accused-appellant ROSA ARUTA Y MENGUIN is hereby
ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED from confinement unless she is
being held for some other legal grounds. No costs.
RATIO:
1. A search may be conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of
a search warrant validly issued by a judge as provided for in
Article III Section 2 of the Constitution (People v. Ramos)
2. However, this is not a banklet prohibition against all searches and
seizures. It only operates against “unreasonable” searches and
seizures.
3. The plain import of the constitutional provision is that searches and
seizures are normally unreasonable, unless authorized by a validly
issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. Moreover, that the product
of such unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible as evidence.
4. This constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and
seizures protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself
against unlawful arrests and other forms of restraint. Therefore, the
right to be secured against any unreasonable seizure of his body
and deprivation of liberty is a most basic and fundamental right.
5. A law or rule which allows exceptions to the requirement of a
warrant of arrest or search warrant must be strictly construed and its
application limited to cases specifically provided for by the law.
Otherwise, it is an infringement on personal liberty.
6. The following cases are allowed by law:
a. Warrantles search incidental to a lawful arrest (Rule 126,
Section 12, Rules of Court)
b. Seizure in “plain view” which have the following elements:
(1) prior valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest;
(3) evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who
had the right to be there; (3) evidence must be immediately
apparent; (4) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence
without further research
c. Search of a moving vehicle – highly regulated by
government. The vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces
expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public
thoroughfaires furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion
amounting to probable cause
d. Consented warrantless search
e. Customs search
f. Stop and frisk
g. Exigent and emergency circumstances
7. Note however that the essential requisite of probable cause must
still be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be
lawfully conducted.
8. By probable cause, this means existence of such facts and
circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the
item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said offense
or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be
searched.
a. Here, the common man relies on the calculus of common
sense.
9. The Court thereafter gave examples of instances where a warrantless
search and seizure was allowed and compared it with the case at bar.
10. People v. Tangliben – acting on an information by informers, the
police conducted a surveillance at the Victory Liner Terminal. Then
they noticed a person carrying a red travelling bag who was acting
suspiciously. Upon asking him to open his bag, he refused, but later
on agreed when the policemen identified themselves. The bag
contained majiruana leaves. Here, the police officers only knew of
the activities of the accused on the night of his arrest. It was his
 actuations and surrounding circumstance (that the terminal was being
used by drug traffickers) which led the police to reasonably suspect
Tangliben.
a. In the case at bar, the apprehending officers already had
prior knowledge from their informant regarding Aruta’s
activities. Unlike in tangliben where the police were
confronted with on the spot tip.
11. People v. Malmstedt – NARCOM agents received reports that
vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana, and they
received an information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had
prohibited drug. There was no time to obtain a search warrant
especially since the identity of the suspect could not be readily
ascertained. Moreover, his actuations aroused suspicion.
a. In the case at bar, the police had reasonable time to
secure a search warrant. Further, Aruta identity was
priorly ascertained. Furthermore, she was not acting
suspicious.
b. Plus, the Malmstedt case, this involved a search aboard a
moving vehicle, unlke in this case, she was just crossing
the street.
12. People v. Bagista – NARCOM officers had probable cause to stop
and search all vehicles coming from the north to Benguet because of
a confidential information that a woman having the same appearance
as Bagista was bringing marijuana. The police had probable cause to
search her for she fitted the description given by the informant.
a. Again, this is different from the case at bar because that
involved a moving vehicle
13. Manlili v. CA – police conducted a surveillance of Kalookan
Cemetery based on information that drug addicts were roaming.
When they got to the cemetery, they chanced upon a man who
appaeared to be “high”. He had reddish eyes and was walking in a
swaying manner. He also tried to avoid the police. When approached
and asked what he was holding, he resisted. His wallet had
marijuana. Here, there was a valid warrantless search because of the
suspicious actuations + information that the place was a haven for
drug addicts.
14. In all the cases mentione, the circumstances taken together with
the information constituted probable cause.
15. However, in the case at bar, the search and seizure was invalid.
16. The police had a day to get the search warrant. The court,
connected this to the case of People v. Aminnudin and People v.
Encinada, where the police had sufficient time to procure the search
warrant. The failure to secure a warrant is not an excuse for violating
a constitutional right.
17. Moreover, Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime, nor
about to or just committed one. She was merely crossing the
street. She was not acting in any manner that would engender a
reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect the
commission of a crime.
18. It was only when the informant pointed at Aruta that she was singled
out as a suspect. She would not have been apprehended if it were not
for the furtive finger of the informant.
19. There was no semblance of any compliance with the requirements of
probable cause and warrantless arrests.
20. Consequently, there was no legal basis to effect a warrantless search.
21. With the arrest being illegal, the search was not incidental to a lawful
arrest.
22. Therefore, the evidence procured are fruits of a poisoned tree, and
must not be admitted in evidence.
23. In the absence of probable cause to effect a valid and legal
warrantless arrest, the search and seizure of accusedappellant’s bag
would also not be justified as seizure of evidence in “plain view”
under the second exception. The marijuana was obviously not
immediately apparent as shown by the fact that the NARCOM agents
still had to request Aruta to open the bag to ascertain its contents.
24. Neither is it justified under the “search of a moving vehicle” because
there was no moving vehicle to speak of. Aruta was apprehended
several minuted AFTER alighting from the Victory Liner bus.
25. There was also no valid stop and frisk. There was no observable
 manifestation that could have aroused the suspicion of the
NARCOM agents as to cause them to “stop and frisk” Aruta. She
was merely crossing the street. She never even attempted to flee
from the NARCOM agents.

26. It is also not under “exigent and emergency circumstances” because

the circumstances do not show that a crime was being committed.

27. There is also no waiver of her constitutional right. Aruta’s act of

handing over her bag could not be construed as voluntary
submission. The rule is that courts indulge every reasonable
presumption AGAINST waiver. There must be actual intention to
relinquish the right.

28. Further, considering that the search was conducted irregularly, i.e.,

without a warrant, we cannot appreciate consent based merely on the
presumption of regularity of the performance of duty.

29. Moreover, had the NARCOM agents only applied for a search
warrant, they could have secured one without too much difficulty

a. The person intended to be searched has been particularized

(Aling Rosa)

b. The thing to be seized is specified (marijuana)

c. The time was sufficiently ascertained (December 14 in the

afternoon)

d. The vehicle was identified (Victory Liner bus)

[Waiver of objections to illegality]

30. There is no waiver in this cases because a plea of not guilty, and
active participation in the trial would not cure the illegality of the
search and transform the inadmissible evidence into objects of proof.
The waiver simply does not extend this far.

31. Granting that evidence obtained through a warrantless search

becomes admissible upon failure to object thereto during the trial of
the case, records show that Aruta filed a Demurrer to Evidence and
objected and opposed the prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence