The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that compliance with the plain view doctrine is not always required to justify a warrantless search, clarifying that the doctrine merely supplements an already valid warrantless arrest and search.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division partly granted the appeal of Jeryl Bautista y Martinez in People of the Philippines v. Jeryl Bautista y Martinez (G.R. No. 255749), reversing his conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs while sustaining his liability for illegal possession.
“The plain view doctrine only supplements the existing justification for a valid warrantless search. Compliance with the plain view doctrine is not always required to justify a warrantless search and subsequent seizure of items. This is especially true if the search is limited to the person of the accused, where the seized items are usually hidden,” the Court said.
FACTS AND ISSUE
The case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted on August 27, 2017 in San Carlos City, Pangasinan, after police received information that Bautista was selling shabu.
According to the prosecution, a poseur-buyer purchased one sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride worth ₱500 from Bautista. After the pre-arranged signal, police arrested him and allegedly recovered three more sachets of shabu totaling 2.07 grams, hidden inside a cellphone charger, along with marked money and other items.
Bautista denied the charges, claiming he was forcibly taken by unidentified men and framed. He questioned the alleged inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimonies and argued noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City convicted Bautista of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine for the sale charge, and 12 years and one day to 16 years imprisonment with a ₱300,000 fine for possession. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction in full.
Before the SC, the main issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody and the validity of the warrantless search and seizure to sustain Bautista’s conviction for both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
THE RULING
The SC partly granted the appeal, acquitting Bautista of illegal sale of dangerous drugs due to a broken chain of custody while affirming his conviction for illegal possession.
On illegal sale, the Court held that although the prosecution proved the identities of the buyer and seller and the occurrence of the transaction, it failed to establish the integrity of the corpus delicti after officers admitted they waited 10 to 15 minutes for witnesses before marking the seized sachet, without any justifiable reason for the delay. Emphasizing that the absence of witnesses is not a valid excuse for failing to immediately mark the items, the Court found a break in the chain of custody that warranted acquittal on reasonable doubt.
On illegal possession, however, the Court affirmed Bautista’s conviction for the three additional sachets recovered from him, finding that the prosecution established the elements of possession and sufficiently proved the chain of custody from seizure and marking to laboratory examination and presentation in court. It likewise rejected his claim that the items were inadmissible for not being in plain view, clarifying that a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest justified the frisk and seizure..
Furthermore, the SC affirmed with modification the appellate ruling, acquitting Bautista of illegal sale in Criminal Case No. SCC-9607 while upholding his conviction for illegal possession in Criminal Case No. SCC-9606 and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 16 years, as maximum, and a ₱300,000 fine.
Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.
