Sec. 2 (People vs Compacion) Warrantless Arrests,Searches, And Seizures

PEOPLE V. COMPACION [G. R. No. 124442, July 20, 2001] FACTS: Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a police informant that accused-appellant was growing and cultivating marijuana plants, SPO1 Linda and SPO2 Sarong conducted a surveillance of  the residence of accused who was then the Barangay Captain. During the said surveillance, they saw 2 tall plants in the backyard of the accused which they suspected as marijuana plants. The team proceeded at the residence of accused despite failure to obtain a warrant. SPO4Villamor knocked at the gate and called out for the accused. What happened thereafter is subject to conflicting accounts. The prosecution contends that the accused opened the gate and permitted them to come in. He was immediately asked by SPO4 Villamor about the suspected marijuana plants and he admitted that he planted and cultivated the same for the use of his wife who was suffering from migraine. The operatives then uprooted the suspected marijuana plants. However, the accused, in his version, stated that while he and his family were sleeping, he heard somebody knocking outside his house. After he opened the gate, 4 persons whom he thought members of the military went inside his house. One of the four men told him to sit in the living room. Some went upstairs while the others went around the house. None of them asked for his permission to search his house. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid search on the backyard of the accused. HELD: No. The search and seizure conducted conduct ed was not authorized by a search warrant. Neither does it fall within the exceptions. exceptions. The accused’ right against unreasonable search was clearly violated. It is extant from the records that accused’ did not consent to the warrantless search and seizure conducted. While such rights may be waived, either expressly or impliedly, such waiver must constitute a valid waiver made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. The act of the accused in allowing the members of the military to enter his premises and his consequent silence during the unreasonable search and seizure could not be construed as voluntary submission or an implied acquiescence to warrantless search and seizure could not be construed as voluntary submission or an implied acquiescence to warrantless search and seizure especially so when members of the raiding team were intimidatingly numerous and heavily armed. 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; a prior valid intention based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; the evidence must be immediately apparent; and plain view justified were seizure of  evidence without further search. Here, there was no valid warrantless arrest. The police entered accused house without the latter’s consent, and with the intent to seize evidence.. The agents did not come across the marijuana plants inadvertently. In fact, they initially wanted to secure a search warrant but could not simply wait for one to be issued.