People v. Libnao y Kitten Warrantless Searches and Seizures FACTS
August 1996: Intelligence operatives of the Philippine National Police (PNP) stationed in Tarlac,
Tarlac Tarlac began conducting surveillance operation on suspected drug dealers in the area The! learned fro" their asset that a certain #o"an fro" Ta$iri, Tarlac and a co"panion fro" %aguio &it! #ere transporting illegal drugs once a "onth in big bul's ctober 1996: &hief Inspector Arceo held a briefing in connection #ith a tip #hich his office received that the t#o drug pushers, riding in a tric!cle, #ould be "a'ing a deliver! that night An hour later, the Police Alert Tea" installed a chec'point in %aranga! alapungan to apprehend the suspects *itness P1 +arlon a"otea, P- .lorante .errer and P/oberto A0uino #ere assigned to "an the chec'point The follo#ing da!, P1 a"otea and P- .errer flagged do#n a passing tric!cle It had t#o fe"ale passengers seated inside, #ho #ere identified as the Agpanga ibnao and her co2 accused /osita Nunga - In front of the" #as a blac' bag uspicious of the blac' bag and their uneas! behavior #hen as'ed about its o#nership and content, officers invited the" to 3aba!an &enter No 4 located at the sa"e barangay bringing barangay bringing #ith the" the the blac' bag The The t#o #o"en and the bag #ere turned over to the investigator on dut!, P- Arthur Antonio As soon as the barangay captain barangay captain arrived, the blac' bag #as opened in the presence of the ibnao, Nunga and personnel of the center center .ound inside inside #ere eight bric's bric's of leaves sealed sealed in plastic bags and covered #ith #ith ne#spaper ne#spaper The leaves leaves #ere suspected suspected to be "ari$uana "ari$uana P- Antonio Antonio interrogated the t#o /osita Nunga stated it #as o#ned b! ibnao ! 3itten The latter, in turn, disputed this allegation Thereafter, Thereafter, the! #ere "ade to sign a confiscation receipt #ithout the assistance of an! counsel, as the! #ere not infor"ed of their right to have one 5uring the course of the investigation, not even close relatives of theirs #ere present The seied articles #ere later brought to the PNP &ri"e aborator! .orensic &he"ist 5ais! P %abu conducted a laborator! e7a"ination on the" he concluded that the articles #ere "ari$uana leaves #eighing eight 'ilos f course, both accused denied the accusations against the" Nung Nu nga a: testified that that she #ent to bu! "edicine "edicine for her ailing ailing child at at a phar"ac! near the Tarlac Tarlac Provincial 8ospital The child #as suffering fro" diarrhea, occasioned b! abdo"inal pain To To return return to their house, she boarded boarded a tric!cle bound bound for %aranga! Tari Tari$i, $i, #here she resides Along the #a!, the tric!cle she #as riding #as flagged do#n b! a police"an at a chec'point in %aranga! alapungan he #as ta'en abac' #hen the officer invited her to the 3aba!an &enter It #as there that she #as confronted #ith the blac' bag allegedl! containing eight bric's of "ari$uana leaves he disputed o#ning the bag and 'no#ing its contents he also denied sitting beside the appellant in the passengers seat inside the tric!cle, although she ad"itted noticing a "ale passenger behind the driver
ibnao ! 3itten ho#ever did not appear in court and #as onl! represented b! her la#!er The latter "ar'ed and sub"itted in evidence an affidavit e7ecuted b! one fren annod, a securit! guard of Philippine /abbit %us ines in Tarlac, Tarlac The s#orn state"ent declared that at about ;44;8 on ctober 4;, 1996, P4 Antonio arrived at their ter"inal and arrested a certain #o"an #ho boarded their %us No 9<- The incident #as recorded in the co"pan!s logboo' annod, ho#ever, #as not presented in court to attest that the #o"an referred in his affidavit #as ibnao ! 3itten RTC: convicted ibnao ! 3itten and Nunga finding both accused guilt! be!ond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Article II, ection = of /A 6=4> in relation to /A ?6>9, sentenced to suffer an i"prison"ent of reclusion perpetua and to pa! a fine of t#o "illion pesos Aggrieved b! the verdict, ibnao ! 3itten interposed the present appeal
ISSUE/S 1 *hether /egional Trial &ourt failed to appreciate the contention of the defense that the right of accused against illegal and un#arranted arrest and search #as violated b! the police officers #ho arrested both accused 4 *hether &ourt failed to appreciate the contention of the defense that the right of the accused to custodial investigation #as deliberatel! violated b! the peace officers #ho apprehended and investigated the accused - *hether &ourt "iserabl! failed to evaluate the "aterial inconsistencies in the testi"onies of the prosecutions #itnesses
HELD Supe!e Cout i" not pe"ua#e# by t$e %ontention" o& Libnao an# Nunga (t@n: ang contentions nila ang isssue) an# appeal !u"t be #i"!i""e#.
1 In arguing that her arrest #as unla#ful, ibnao ! 3itten capitalies on absence of a #arrant for her arrest he contends that at the ti"e she #as apprehended b! the police officers, she #as not co""itting an! offense but 'a" !eely i#ing a ti%y%le he also i"pugns search "ade on her belongings as illegal as it #as done #ithout a valid #arrant or under circu"stances #hen #arrantless search is per"issible &onse0uentl!, an! evidence obtained therein is inad"issible against her SUPRE(E C)URT* Agu!ent" &aile# to i!pe"".
eneral rule is that a search "a! be conducted b! la# enforcers onl! on the strength of a search #arrant validl! issued b! a $udge as provided in Article III, ection 4 of the 19
or affir"ation of the co"plainant and the #itnesses he "a! produce, and particularl! describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seied
The constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures as it operates only against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Searches and seizures are as a rule unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. Thus, the funda"ental protection accorded b! the search and seiure clause is that bet#een persons and police "ust stand the protective authorit! of a "agistrate clothed #ith po#er to issue or refuse to issue search #arrants and #arrants of arrest
%e that as it "a!, re0uire"ent that a $udicial #arrant "ust be obtained prior to the carr!ing out of a search and seiure is not absolute There are certain fa"iliar e7ceptions to the rule, one o& '$i%$ elate" to "ea%$ o& !oving ve$i%le" *arrantless search and seiure of "oving vehicles are allo#ed in recognition of i"practicabilit! of securing #arrant under said circu"stances as vehicle can be 0uic'l! "oved out of the localit! or $urisdiction in #hich the #arrant "a! be sought Pea%e o&&i%e" in "u%$ %a"e"+ $o'eve+ ae li!ite# to outine %$e%," '$ee t$e e-a!ination o& t$e ve$i%le i" li!ite# to vi"ual in"pe%tion *hen a vehicle is stopped and sub$ected to e7tensive search, s u%$ 'oul# be %on"titutionally pe!i""ible only i& t$e o&&i%e" !a#e it upon pobable %au"e , i.e., upon a belief, reasonabl! arising out of circu"stances 'no#n to the seiing officer, that an auto"obile or other vehicle contains as ite", article or ob$ect #hich b! la# is sub$ect to seiure and destruction In earlier decisions, probable cause is found under the follo#ing circu"stances: (a) #here the distinctive odor of "ari$uana e"anated fro" the plastic bag carried b! the accusedB (b) #here an infor"er positivel! identified the accused #ho #as observed to be acting suspiciousl!B (c) #here the accused #ho #ere riding a $eepne! #ere stopped and searched b! police"en #ho had earlier received confidential reports that said accused #ould transport a 0uantit! of "ari$uanaB (d) #here Narco" agents had received infor"ation that a &aucasian co"ing fro" agada, +ountain Province had in his possession prohibited drugs and #hen the Narco" agents confronted the accused &aucasian because of a conspicuous bulge in his #aistline, he failed to present his passport and other identification papers #hen re0uested to do soB (e) #here the "oving vehicle #as stopped and searched on the basis of intelligence infor"ation and clandestine reports b! a deep penetration agent or sp! C one #ho participated in the drug s"uggling activities of the s!ndicate to #hich the accused belong C that said accused #ere bringing prohibited drugs into the countr!B (f) #here the arresting officers had received a confidential infor"ation that the accused, #hose identit! as a drug distributor #as established in a previous test2bu! operation, #ould
be boarding +D Dona Virginia and probabl! carr!ing shabu #ith hi"B (g) #here police officers received an infor"ation that the accused, #ho #as carr!ing a suspicious2loo'ing gra! luggage bag, #ould transport "ari$uana in a bag to +anilaB and (h) #here the appearance of the accused and the color of the bag he #as carr!ing fitted the description given b! a civilian asset *arrantless search in the case has probable cause Tarlac Police Intelligence 5ivision had been conducting surveillance operation for three "onths in the area The surveillance !ielded the infor"ation that once a "onth, ibnao ! 3itten and /osita Nunga transport drugs in big bul's Police receiving a tip that the t#o #ill be transporting drugs that night riding a tric!cle urel!, the t#o #ere intercepted three hours later, riding a tric!cle and carr!ing a suspicious2loo'ing blac' bag, #hich possibl! contained the drugs in bul' *hen the! #ere as'ed #ho o#ned it and #hat its content #as, both beca"e uneas! Un#e t$e"e %i%u!"tan%e"+ t$e 'aantle"" "ea%$ an# "eiue o& appellant" bag 'a" not illegal It is also clear that at the ti"e ibnao ! 3itten #as apprehended, she #as co""itting a cri"inal offense he #as "a'ing a deliver! or transporting prohibited drugs in violation of Article II, ection = of /A No 6=4> Ender the /ules of &ourt, one of the instances a police officer is per"itted to carr! out a #arrantless arrest is #hen the person to be arrested is caught co""itting a cri"e in flagrante delicto: Se%tion 0. Arrest without Warrant; when lawful . C A peace officer or a private person "a!, #ithout #arrant, arrest a person: 1a2 When in his presence, the person to be arrested $a" %o!!itte#+ is actually coitting + o i" atte!pting to %o!!it an offense3
(b) *hen an offense has in fact $ust been co""itted, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal 'no#ledge of facts or circu"stances that the person to be arrested has co""itted itB and (c) *hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner #ho has escaped fro" a penal establish"ent or place #here he is serving final $udg"ent or te"poraril! confined #hile his case is pending, or has escaped #hile being transferred fro" one confine"ent to another
4 SUPRE(E C)URT* Libnao y Kitten i" in%oe%t an# %ontention" #e"eve "%ant attention. In deter"ining the guilt of the ibnao ! 3itten and Nunga, the trial court based its decision on the testi"onies of prosecution #itnesses and on the e7istence of the confiscated "ari$uana *e 0uote the relevant portion of its decision: Fince the prosecution had not presented an! e7tra$udicial confession e7tracted fro" both accused as evidence of their guilt, the court finds it needless to discuss an! ans#er given b! both accused as a result of the police interrogation #hile in their custod! By force of necessity, therefore, the only issue to be resolved by the court is whether or not, based on the prosecution's evidence, both accused can be convicted
ibnao ! 3itten then faults trial court for appreciating and ta'ing into account the ob$ect and
docu"entar! evidence of the prosecution despite the latters failure to for"all! offer the" Absent an! for"al offer, she argues that the! again "ust be dee"ed inad"issible T$e %ontention i" untenable vidence not for!ally offered can be considered by the court as long as they have been properly identified by testi!ony duly recorded and they have the!selves been incorporated in the records of the case All the docu"entar! and ob$ect evidence in this case #ere properl! identified, presented and "ar'ed as e7hibits in court, including the bric's of "ari$uana Even 'it$out t$ei &o!al o&&e+ t$ee&oe+ t$e po"e%ution %an "till e"tabli"$ t$e %a"e be%au"e 'itne""e" popely i#enti&ie# t$o"e e-$ibit"+ an# t$ei te"ti!onie" ae e%o#e# .urther"ore, ibnaos counsel had cross2e7a"ined the prosecution #itnesses #ho testified on the e7hibits
- SUPRE(E C)URT* Contention" la%, !eit. Alleged inconsistencies (as to #ho opened the bag, #hen the bag #as opened, failure of police officer to identif! na"e of tric!cle driver) she "entions refer onl! to "inor details and not to "aterial points regarding the basic ele"ents of the cri"e The! are inconse0uential that the! do not affect the credibilit! of the #itnesses nor detract fro" the established fact that appellant and her co2accused #ere transporting "ari$uana The! are inconse0uential and do not affect the credibilit! of the #itnesses nor detract fro" the established fact that appellant and her co2 accused #ere transporting "ari$uana Te"ti!onie" o& 'itne""e" nee# only %ooboate ea%$ ot$e on i!potant an# elevant #etail" %on%ening t$e pin%ipal o%%uen%e The identit! of the person #ho opened the bag is clearl! i""aterial to the guilt of ibnao ! 3itten %esides, it is to be e7pected that the testi"on! of #itnesses regarding the sa"e incident "a! be inconsistent in so"e aspects because different persons "a! have different recollections of the sa"e incident To be sure, credence #as properl! accorded to the testi"onies of prosecution #itnesses, #ho are la# enforcers *hen police officers have no "otive to testif! falsel! against ibnao ! 3itten, courts are inclined to uphold this presu"ption In this case, no evidence has been presented to suggest an! i"proper "otive on the part of the police enforcers in arresting ibnao ! 3itten Against credible positive testi"onies of prosecution #itnesses, ibnao ! 3ittens defense of denial and alibi cannot stand 5efense of denial and alibi has been invariabl! vie#ed b! the courts #ith disfavor for it can $ust as easil! be concocted and is a co""on and standard defense plo! in "ost cases involving violation of the 5angerous 5rugs Act It has to be substantiated b! clear and convincing evidence ole proof presented in lo#er court b! ibnao ! 3itten to support her clai" of denial and alibi #as a s#orn state"ent, #hich #as not even affir"ed on the #itness stand b! the affiant Hen%e+ 'e e4e%t $e #e&en"e FINAL DISP)SITI5E P)RTI)N: Appeal is 5NI5 5ecision of /T& is A..I/+5
