GR 238865; (January, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 238865 . January 28, 2019. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BILLY ACOSTA, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Billy Acosta was charged with Illegal Planting and Cultivation of Marijuana under Section 16, Article II of R.A. 9165. The prosecution alleged that police officers, responding to a report of a mauling incident involving Acosta, proceeded to his residence. Upon arrival, the informant, Alfredo Salucana, positively identified Acosta, who was then arrested. After the arrest, the police found thirteen hills of suspected marijuana plants beneath “gabi” plants just outside Acosta’s home, about a meter from the arrest site. The plants were uprooted in the presence of barangay officials, marked, inventoried at the police station, and later confirmed by forensic examination to be marijuana.
Acosta denied the charges, arguing the evidence was inadmissible. He contended the “plain view” doctrine was inapplicable because the discovery was not inadvertent, as the informant had specifically pointed out the plants to the police. He further alleged a violation of the chain of custody rules under Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The Regional Trial Court convicted Acosta, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Both courts held the marijuana was seized under the plain view doctrine during a lawful arrest and that the chain of custody was intact.
ISSUE
Whether the warrantless seizure of the marijuana plants is valid under the plain view doctrine, rendering them admissible as evidence.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Acosta. The seizure of the marijuana plants cannot be justified under the plain view doctrine, making the evidence inadmissible. For the doctrine to apply, three requisites must concur: (a) the law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.
Here, the second requisite was not met. The discovery was not inadvertent. Police testimony revealed they went to Acosta’s house precisely because the informant had reported the presence of marijuana plants. Their search was therefore purposive and intentional, not a chance discovery incidental to a lawful arrest for mauling. Since the warrantless seizure was invalid, the confiscated plants constitute inadmissible evidence under Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution . Without this essential evidence, which constitutes the corpus delicti of the crime, Acosta’s guilt cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, his acquittal is warranted.