Obscure view

Can prohibited drugs not specified in the search warrant be legally seized by the law enforcers? This is one of the questions raised by Simeon who was charged with two cases of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act: the first case for wilfully, unlawfully, and knowingly using 11.14 grams of shabu without the necessary license or prescription; and the second case for willfully, unlawfully and knowingly having in his possession and under his custody and control, 1,254 grams of marijuana.

A search warrant was issued by the Regional Trial Court to search the residence of Simeon upon application of SPO1 Ben who testified that as poseur-buyer, he was able to purchase 2.12 grams of shabu from Simeon inside the latter’s room where he saw shabu from a cabinet. The search warrant authorized the seizure of undetermined quantity of shabu and drug paraphernalia.

Armed with this warrant a group of 10 policemen along with the civilian informer went to Simeon’s residence. When nobody opened the door despite the knocking, the police operatives forced the door open and entered the house. They showed the warrant to the apparently panicking occupants and searched the house. The police found 12 small heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance, a paper clip box containing white crystalline substance from the cabinet. But they did not stop there. They continued their search inside the house and subsequently found two bricks of dried leaves wrapped in a newsprint which appeared to be marijuana with a total weight of 1,254 grams.

The police took Simeon with them into the police station. And upon ascertaining in a laboratory examination that the items seized from Simeon were prohibited drugs, the two cases were filed.

After trial the lower court found Simeon guilty of the two charges. In the first case for illegal possession of shabu, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment from 6 months to 4 years and 2 months. In the second case for illegal possession of marijuana he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The lower court convicted him in the second case despite the fact that the marijuana seized was not covered by the warrant on the ground that the said drug was seized within the "plain view" of the searching party.

Was the lower court correct in convicting Simeon of illegal possession of 1, 254 grams of marijuana?

No.

Under the "plain view" doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. For this doctrine to apply, there must be: (a) a prior justification; (b) inadvertent discovery of the evidence; and (c) immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before the police.

In this case, the search warrant authorized the seizure of shabu not marijuana. Because the location of the shabu was indicated in the warrant and thus known to the police operatives, the police logically searched found the packets of shabu first. Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed, the "plain view" doctrine can no longer provide any basis for admitting the other items subsequently found. The plain view doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges. Moreover, the police failed to allege and prove when the marijuana was found, i.e., whether prior to, or contemporaneous with the shabu, subject of the warrant, or whether it was recovered from Simeon himself or in an area within his immediate control.

Besides, the marijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint. What was in plain view was the newsprint not the marijuana. Not being in a transparent container, the contents wrapped in a newsprint could not have been readily discernible as marijuana. There was no apparent illegality to justify their seizure. The seizure of the marijuana is therefore invalid and it can not be used as evidence against Simeon. He should be acquitted of the crime for which he was sentenced to the heavier penalty of reclusion perpetua. But the confiscation of the marijuana must be upheld. (Pp. vs. Salanguit, G.R.133254-133255, April 19, 2001).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]