People vs.

Aspiras

Facts

Accused-appellant and Rodolfo San Lorenzo were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for unlawfully
selling marijuana under Sec. 4 of RA 6425, while Sec. 8 of the same act was charged to the accused-
appellant only for supposed possession of the same unlawful substance, as decided by the Regional Trial
Court of Paranaque, Metro Manila and later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

This was after a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers from which the selling of marijuana has
been engaged by the accused-appellant and from which 2 bricks of marijuana have been allegedly found
in the possession of the accused by plain-view doctrine as argued by the police officers.

Issue:

Was the warrantless search under plain view doctrine validly applied as to convict the accused-appellant
in violation of Sec. 8, RA. 6425?

Rule:

No. The Supreme Court decided that the plain view doctrine was not validly applied based on the
testimony of the police officers when they found the marijuana bricks under the table wrapped in a
plastic and unknown of its identification in plain view, unless otherwise opened. Therefore, the
prosecution failed to prove under the plain view doctrine, the contents of the 2 bricks recovered and as
deemed possessed by the accused-appellant.

Under the "plain view doctrine," unlawful objects within the "plain view" of an officer who has the right
to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence.16
Nonetheless, the seizure of evidence in plain view must comply with the following elements: (a) a prior
valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit
of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the 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