PEOPLE v.

COGAED
G.R. NO. 200334, 30th of July, 2014

LEONEN, J.

This case is a question of admissibility of evidence seized as a result of warrantless arrest.

Facts:

A Police Senior Inspector received a text message from an unidentified informant that someone
in the name of Marvin Buya will be transporting Marijuana from one barangay to another. On
that note, PSI Bayan and SPO1 Taracatac set up a checkpoint in the waiting area of the
passengers. A passenger jeepney arrived to the checkpoint and the driver disembarked and
signaled the police indicating that the 2 male passengers are carrying marijuana. They were
identified as Victor Cogaed carrying a blue bag and Santiago Dayao having the yellow bag
allegedly given to them by their barriomate in the name of Marvin. Both were brought out to
the police station wherein the police officers found out that their bags contain a total of more
than 17,000 grams of suspected marijuana. Accordingly, Cogaed was just ask by Dayao to help
him carry his things and so he agreed as they both going to the market in, fact he never know
what was inside the bags. When the police learned that it was an illegal drug they were
apprehended and brought to police station and were charged illegal possession of dangerous
drugs.

Case was brought to the court and Cogaed was found guilty while Dayao were dismissed as he
was only 14 years old and was exempt from criminal liability. Coaged appealed but it was
denied by the CA contending that he already waived his rights against warrantless searches
when he did not protest and voluntarily opened his bag.

Issue:

W/N there was a valid search and seizure of evidence (marijuana) and whether the evidence
seized in an unlawful warrantless search and seizure can be admitted as evidence against the
appellant that can sustain his conviction.

Ruling:

Court favors the accused. The court ruled that the Constitution protect its people from
unreasonable searches and seizures and for Cogaed case the search and seizures are
unreasonable. Court ruled that Art 3 Sec. 2 of the Constitution requires that the court should
examine with care and diligence whether searches and seizures are "reasonable." As a general
rule, searches conducted with a warrant that meets all the requirements of this provision are
reasonable. This warrant requires the existence of probable cause that can only be determined
by a judge. The existence of probable cause must be established by the judge after asking
searching questions and answers. Probable cause at this stage can only exist if there is an offense
alleged to be committed. Also, the warrant frames the searches done by the law enforcers. There
must be a particular description of the place and the things to be searched. Constitution and
jurisprudence provide instances where searches and seizures in warrantless arrest are
reasonable such as in the following manner;

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest which require that a crime committed in
flagrante delicto.
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view,"
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 cause that the occupant
committed a criminal activity;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and frisk if the concept of suspiciousness is present in the situation; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances

As per the court, these circumstances were not present in Cogaed situation as he was only a
passenger carrying a bag and travelling aboard the jeepney and there was nothing suspicious.
The suspicion was not made by the police officer but by the jeepney driver who was neither an
informant and none of the other exceptions to warrantless searches exist to allow the evidence
to be admissible, even the facts of the case does not qualify as a search incidental to a lawful
arrest.

In addition the court ruled that his warrantless arrest is invalid due to the absence of elements
of warrantless arrest such as;

a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense; (accused is not committing a crime)

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed 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 to another. (not an escapee
prisoner)The evidence seized during the warrantless arrest is inadmissible even the appellant didn’t object when
the police asked him to open his bag and found the suspected marijuana as they violated his constitutional rights
against unreasonable search and seizures and with regard to the poisonous tree doctrine.

Since there is no evidence to convict the appellant, he was acquitted by the Supreme Court.