07. PEOPLE v. SAPLA, G.R. NO.

244045 by Gargalicano
June 16, 2020 | Caguiao, J. | Warrantless Seizure (and Warrantless Arrest)

PLAINTIFF - APPELLEE People of the Philippines

ACCUSED - APPELLANT Jerry Sapla y. Guerrero aka Eric Salibad y Mallari

SUMMARY: Police officers received a phone call from a concerned citizen with information that marijuana is to be
transported by a certain male individual from Kalinga to Isabela. The police also received a text message with a detailed
description of the said male individual with plate number of the transporting vehicle. The police together with the PDEA
organized a checkpoint where Sapla was found with a blue sack with four bricks of suspected dried marijuana wrapped in
newspaper and an old calendar inside. The police then arrested Sapla and consequently was convicted by the RTC. Sapla filed
an appeal with the CA where the petition was denied. Issue in this case is whether the police officers may justify the
warrantless search. The Court held that since the marijuana leaves were not discovered in plain sight as the blocks of
marijuana leaves are inside the blue sack and wrapped in newspapers and an old calendar, the search and seizure of
the marijuana leaves are inadmissible as evidence in court.

DOCTRINE: The plain view doctrine permits the warrantless seizure of items if the items are discovered inadvertently and
are immediately apparent as evidence of crime. Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested or held for trial, as the case may be.

Hot pursuit arrest under Section 5(b), Rule 113, to be valid, first, there must be probable cause; second, the crime has just
been committed, and third, that the person making the warrantless arrest has personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it.

PROVISION/S OF LAW CITED:

Section 13, Rule 126, Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully arrested may 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.

Section 5, Rule 113, Arrest without warrant, when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person: a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense; 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 is temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

Facts:

1. On 10 January 2014, an officer on duty at the Regional Public Safety Battalion (RPSB) office received a phone call
from a concerned citizen, who informed the said office that a certain male individual [would] be transporting marijuana
from Kalinga and into the Province of Isabela. Information was relayed and a joint operation team was coordinated
with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
2. By afternoon, the RPSB hotline received a text message which stated that the subject male person who [would]
transport marijuana [was] wearing a collared white shirt with green stripes, red ball cap, and [was] carrying a blue sack
on board a passenger jeepney, with plate number AYA 270 bound for Roxas, Isabela. Subsequently, a joint checkpoint
was strategically organized at the Talaca command post.
3. The blue jeep arrived at the check point and the police officers flagged them down asking Sapla if he was the owner of
the blue sack in front of him which he answered in the affirmative. He was then requested to open the blue sack. Sapla
opened the blue sack and officers Labbutan and Mabiasan saw four bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves wrapped
in newspaper and an old calendar. PO3 Labbutan subsequently arrested Sapla and informed him of the cause of his
arrest and his constitutional rights.
4. Sapla was then convicted by the RTC for violating Section 5 of R.A. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002. The accused was also fined for Php 5M pesos. Sapla appealed the decision where the CA denied the petition
but modified the penalty to Php 1M. Sapla then assailed the decision with the SC.

Issue/s:

1. Whether an informant’s tip is sufficient to engender probable cause – no.

2. Whether the police officers may justify the search as a search of a moving vehicle – no.
3. Whether the police officers may justify the search as consented search – no.

Dispositive Portion:

WHEREFORE, accused-appellant Jerry Sapla y Guerrero a.k.a. Eric Salibad y Mallari is ACQUITTED of the crime charged
on the ground of reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully
held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

Ruling:
1. No, because the Supreme Court has ruled that mere informant’s tip is NOT sufficient to engender probable cause. Law
enforcers cannot solely act based on a confidential or tipped information. A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it
may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arouse
suspicion.
2. No, in the case at bar, the target of the search was not the jeepney boarded by Sapla but rather Salpa himself. It is also
to be noted that the marijuana leaves were not discovered in plain sight as the blocks of marijuana leaves are
inside the blue sack and wrapped in newspapers and an old calendar. The suspected marijuana leaves are brought
to the RPSB’s office where examination revealed that the specimens are indeed marijuana.
3. No, because the presence of the police officers vitiated his compliance with the police’s request to open the blue sack
containing the marijuana. In the case of People v. Tudtud, there is an effective waiver of rights against unreasonable
searches and seizures if the following requisites are present: 1) It must appear that the rights exist; 2) The person
involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; 3) Said person had an actual intention to
relinquish the right. The court also ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the second and third requisites for an
effective waiver of rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Appellant’s lack of objection to the search
and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or voluntary submission to the warrantless search
and seizure.