Omaweng-compacion.docx

PEOPLE VS OMAWENG 43 SCRA 46, 1992

FACTS:

A cream-colored Ford Fiera driven by Conway Omaweng was flagged down by Joseph Layong and other Police Constabulary Soldiers in a checkpoint somewhere at the junction of Sagada and Bontoc Roads in Mt. Province. Omaweng acceded to the PC soldiers’ request of inspecting hia vehicle. The soldiers noticed a travelling bag partially covered by a spare tire under the passenger seat on the right side of the vehicle. Layong and his companions asked Omaweng if they could check the travelling bag, Omaweng consented. Layong opened the bag and found 41 packets of pulverized substances which were later on proven to be marijuana. Omaweng was charged and covicted with violation of Sec 47, Art II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the search and seizure conducted were unreasonable.

RULING:

No. Omaweng willingly gave prior consent to the search and voluntarily agreed to have it conducted in his vehicle and travelling bag. He waived his rights against unreasonable searches when he consented to have the search made. The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived. Since in the course of the valid search, 41 packets of drugs were found, it behoved the officers to seize the same; no warrant was necessary for such seizure. Besides, when said packages were identified by the prosecution witnesss and later on formally offered in evidence, the accused did not raise any objection whatsoever.

PEOPLE VS COMPACION GR No. 124442, 20 July 2001

FACTS:

Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a police informant that Armando Compacion was growing and cultivating marijuana plants, SPO1 Gilbert Linda and SPO2 Basilio Sarong conducted surveillance of the residence of Compacion. During the survelillance SPO1 Linda and SPO2 Basilio saw 2 tall plants in Compacion’s backyard, suspected to e marijuana plants.The NARCOM tem of Bacolod applied for a search warrant, but failed to acquire one because it was already late at night and it is way beyond office house. Even without the warrant, the police officers went to Compacion’s residece to search and seize the suspected marijuana. The plants were uprooted abd yeilded positive results for marijuana tesing

ISUUE:

Whether Compacion’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated.

RULING:

Yes. Sec 2 and 3 )2) Article III of the 1987 constitution are safeguards against reckless, malicious, and unreasonable invasion of privacy and liberty. A judicial warrant makes the search and seizure reasonable. However, the law recognizes the following exceptions in acquiring a judicial warrant, to wit: a) when the premises consents or voluntarily submits to a search; b) when the owner of the premises waives his right against such incursion; c) when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest; d) when it is made on automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws; e) when it involves prohibited articles in plain view; f) when it involves a “stop and frisk” situation; g) when the search is under exigent and emergency circumstances; or h) in cases of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary, and building regulations. Consequently, Compacion's right against unreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated. As a general rule, objects in the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure without a warrant. It is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Thus, the following elements must be present before the doctrine may be applied: (a) a prior valid intention 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 have the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) "plain view" justified were seizure of evidence without further search. Here, there was no valid warrantless arrest. They forced their way into Compacion's premises without the latter's consent. It is undisputed that the NARCOM agents conducted a surveillance of the residence of Compacion on 9 July 1995 on the suspicion that he was growing and cultivating marijuana when they allegedly came in "plain view" of the marijuana plants. When the agents entered his premises on 13 July 1995, their intention was to seize the evidence against him. In fact, they initially wanted to secure a search warrant but could not

simply wait for one to be issued. The NARCOM agents, therefore, did not come across the marijuana plants inadvertently when they conducted a surveillance and barged into Compacion's residence. As held in People v. Musa, the "plain view" doctrine may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant's guilt. The "plain view" doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Hence, Compacion is acquitted of the crime to which he was charge