People vs. Doria y Bolado carton box under the dining table.

He saw that
G.R. No. 125299 one of the box's flaps was open and inside the
01.22.1999 box was something wrapped in plastic.

FACTS: The plastic wrapper and its contents appeared

Accused-appellants were charged with violation similar to the marijuana earlier "sold" to him
of Section 4, in relation to Section 21 of the by "Jun."
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
After trial, the RTC, convicted accused- His suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit entered
appellants. The trial court found the existence "Neneth's" house and took hold of the box. He
of an "organized/syndicated crime group" and peeked inside the box and found that it
sentenced both accused-appellants to death contained ten (10) bricks of what appeared to
and pay a one of P500,000.00 each. be dried marijuana leaves.
In the present appeal, accused-appellant Doria
contend that the trial court gravely erred in Simultaneous with the box's discovery, SPO1
admitting as evidence the marijuana fruitings Badua recovered the marked bills from
found inside the carton box because they were "Neneth." The policemen arrested "Neneth."
obtained through a warrantless search and They took "Neneth" and "Jun," together with
does not come within the plain view doctrine. the box, its contents and the marked bills and
Accused-appellant Gaddao, on the other hand, turned them over to the investigator at
assails the validity of warrantless search headquarters.
leading to the seizure of the marijuana inside
her house. It was only then that the police learned that
"Jun" is Florencio Doria y Bolado while
Prosecution’s Story: "Neneth" is Violeta Gaddao y Catama.
The PNP Narcom recived an information
coming form 2 civilian informant (CI) that one The one (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves
“Jun” was engaged in illegal drugs. The PNP recovered from "Jun" plus the ten (10) bricks
decided to entrap and arrest “Jun” in a buy- recovered from "Neneth's" house were
bust operation. examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory.
The bricks, eleven (11) in all, were found to be
On the day of the scheduled buy-bust dried marijuana fruiting tops of various weights
operation, the CI introduced PO3 Manlangit to totalling 7,641.08 grams.
“Jun” as an interested buyer of marijuana.
After handing “Jun” the marked money, the “Neneth” Gaddao’s Story:
latter instructed Manlangit and CI to wait while She was only doing her daily chores as a
he gets the marijuana from his associate. mother and wife during the day of the buy-
bust.
Upon the return of “Jun”, he took out from his
bag an object wrapped in plastic bag and gave She left the house with her youngest child to
it to Manlangit. send one of her son to school and left the door
open with her twin children left inside.
Manlangit forthwith arrested "Jun" as SPO1
Badua rushed to help in the arrest. They On their way home, they passed by the
frisked "Jun" but did not find the marked bills artesian well water to fetch water when
on him. suddenly a man clad in shorts and denim
jacket suddenly appeared and her left wrist.
Upon inquiry, "Jun" revealed that he left the The man pulled her and took her to her house.
money at the house of his associate named She found out later that the man was PO3
"Neneth." Manlangit.
"Jun" led the police team to "Neneth's" house
nearby at Daang Bakal. Inside her house were her co-accused Doria
and three (3) other persons. They asked her
The team found the door of "Neneth's" house about a box on top of the table. This was the
open and at woman inside. "Jun" first time she saw the box.
identified the woman as his associate. SPO1
Badua asked "Neneth" about the P1,600.00 as The box was closed and tied with a piece of
PO3 Manlangit looked over "Neneth's" house. green straw. The men opened the box and
Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a
showed her its contents. She said she did not were marijuana because he himself checked
know anything about the box and its contents. and marked the said contents.

ISSUES: On cross-examination, however, he admitted

WON the warrantless arrest of “Neneth” that he merely presumed the contents to be
Gaddao is lawful. NO. marijuana because it had the same plastic
wrapping as the "buy bust marijuana."
WON the warrantless search leading to the
seizure of the marijuana found inside the A close scrutiny of the records reveals that the
house of Gaddao is valid. NO. plastic wrapper was not colorless and
transparent as to clearly manifest its contents
RULING: to a viewer.
WARRANTLESS ARREST NOT LAWFUL
To be lawful, the warrantless arrest of Each of the ten (10) bricks of marijuana in the
appellant Gaddao must fall under any of the box was individually wrapped in old newspaper
three (3) instances enumerated in Section 5 of and placed inside plastic bags — white, pink or
Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal blue in color.
Procedure. PO3 Manlangit himself admitted on cross
examination that the contents of the box could
Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught be items other than marijuana.
red-handed during the buy-bust operation to He did not know exactly what the box
give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao
of Rule 113. about its contents.
She was not committing any crime.
It was not immediately apparent to PO3
Contrary to the finding of the trial court, there Manlangit that the content of the box was
was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to marijuana.
flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in
"hot pursuit." The marijuana was not in plain view and its
In fact, she was going about her daily chores seizure without the requisite search warrant
when the policemen pounced on her. was in violation of the law and the
Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be Constitution.
justified under the second instance of Rule
113. It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should
have been excluded and never considered by
"Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests the trial court.
without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule
113 must be based upon "probable cause" Hence, appellant Gaddao was acquitted.
which means an "actual belief or reasonable Accused Gaddao was not caught red handed
grounds of suspicion." during the buy-bust operation to give ground
for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, of the Rules of Court. She was not committing
in the absence of actual belief of the arresting any crime.
officers, the suspicion that the person to be
arrested is probably guilty of committing the Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was
offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., illegal, it follows that the search of her person
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong and home and the subsequent seizure of the
in themselves to create the probable cause of marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed
guilt of the person to be arrested. legal as an incident to her arrest.

A reasonable suspicion therefore must be The Court, however, upheld appellant Doria's
founded on probable cause, coupled with good warrantless arrest. The Court also upheld the
faith on the part of the peace officers making validity of the buy-bust operation wherein
the arrest. Doria was caught in the act of selling
marijuana.
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE IS NOT
APPLICABLE The Court reiterated the doctrine that when an,
In his direct examination, PO3 Manlangit said accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as
that he was sure that the contents of the box a result of a buy-bust operation, the law
enforcement agents are not only authorized
but also duty-bound, to arrest him even
without a warrant.