G.R. No. 116720 October 2, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROEL ENCINADA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information dated May 22, 1992, charged Appellant Roel Encinada with illegal transportation of prohibited drugs. The prosecution’s version, as recounted by the Solicitor General, states that on May 20, 1992, SPO4 Nicolas Bolonia received a tip from an informant that Encinada would arrive in Surigao City from Cebu City aboard the M/V Sweet Pearl on May 21, 1992, bringing marijuana. The police deployed at the wharf the next morning. Upon docking, they saw Encinada disembark carrying two small colored plastic baby chairs. He boarded a tricycle, which the police stopped. Bolonia identified himself, ordered Encinada to alight, and asked for the chairs. Between the stacked chairs was a bulky package. Bolonia examined it, smelled marijuana, and made a small tear, confirming its appearance and smell. Encinada was brought to the police station where the package was opened, revealing dried marijuana leaves. Laboratory examination confirmed the leaves were marijuana. The defense version, through appellant’s denial, claims that after disembarking and boarding a motorela, the vehicle was stopped by police, all passengers were ordered off and searched, and Encinada was singled out and arrested despite his protests and demand for a warrant. He denied ownership of the plastic chairs and the marijuana.

ISSUE

Whether the marijuana seized from appellant without a search warrant is admissible in evidence against him.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the trial court’s Decision and ACQUITTED appellant. The Court held that the warrantless search and seizure were illegal. The prosecution failed to prove that the arrest of Encinada fell under the exceptions to a warrantless arrest. The police acted solely on an informant’s tip received the previous afternoon, and there was no showing that Encinada was committing, had just committed, or was attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officers at the time he was accosted. The search cannot be justified as incidental to a lawful arrest because the arrest itself was unlawful. The evidence (the marijuana) obtained from the illegal search is inadmissible pursuant to the constitutional proscription. A yield of incriminating evidence does not legitimize an illegal search. The Court reiterated that the end never justifies the means.