G.R.No.

74869 July 6, 1988

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI, defendant-appellant.

Facts:

Idel Aminnudin was arrested shortly after embarking from M/V Wilcon 9 at around 8:30 PM inIloilo
City on June 25, 1984. After having received a tip from one of their informers that the accused wason
board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana, the PC officers, acting on this tip,waited
for him, and when he arrived, they simply accosted him, inspected his bag and found articleswhich look
liked marijuana leaves. They took him to their headquarters for investigation. The twobundles of suspect
articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory forexamination. When they
were verified as marijuana leaves, an information for violation of theDangerous Drugs Act was filed
against him. Eventually he was convicted. In his defense, Aminnudindisclaimed the marijuana,
contending that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket,two shirts and two pairs of
pants. He insisted he did not even know what marijuana looked like and thathis business was selling
watches and sometimes cigarettes. He also contended that his bag wasconfiscated without a search
warrant.

Issue: Whether or not the search and the arrest conducted to Idel Aminnudin is lawful.
Whether or not he is guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Held:

1. The Court held that the search and the arrest conducted to Idel Aminnudin is NOT lawful. ArticleIII,
Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the right of the people to be secure in theirpersons, houses,
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatevernature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shallissue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examinationunder oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, andparticularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized. In thecase, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge
after personaldetermination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of
thegovernment, the accused-appellant was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to
becommitted or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113of the
Rules of Court. Regarding the contention that there was no time to secure a searchwarrant, it is clear
that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained awarrant to arrest and search
Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. Hisname was known. The vehicle was
identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from theinformation they had received, they could
have persuaded a judge that there was probablecause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet
they did nothing.

2. Without the evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from Aminnudin, the case of the prosecution
must fall. The evidence cannot be admitted, and should never have beenconsidered by the trial court for
the simple fact is that the marijuana was seized illegally.Because the evidence was illegally seized,
it cannot be admitted. Without the evidence, IdelAminnudin must, therefore, be acquitted of the charge.