G.R. No. 138382-84, February 12, 2002
People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Aspiras

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rolando Aspiras and co-accused Rodolfo San Lorenzo were charged with the unlawful sale of marijuana (violation of Sec. 4, R.A. 6425) following a buy-bust operation on December 27, 1994. Police Aide Jerry Sabino acted as poseur-buyer, giving marked money to San Lorenzo, who then entered Aspiras’s house. Aspiras subsequently emerged and handed five aluminum foils containing marijuana to Sabino, leading to their arrest. A separate charge for possession of prohibited drugs (Sec. 8) was filed against Aspiras after police claimed to have seized two bricks of marijuana from inside his house during the arrest.
The defense presented a starkly contrasting version. Aspiras testified that police officers forcibly entered his home, handcuffed him at gunpoint, and accused him of hiding shabu. After an unsuccessful search, an officer went to the kitchen and later emerged claiming to have found marijuana, which Aspiras alleged was planted. The trial court convicted Aspiras for both sale and possession, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty for sale and reclusion perpetua for possession.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the warrantless seizure of the two bricks of marijuana from inside Aspiras’s house was valid, rendering the evidence admissible for the possession charge.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for the sale of marijuana but acquitted Aspiras of the possession charge. For the sale, the prosecution successfully established all elements of the crime through the credible testimony of the poseur-buyer regarding the consummated transaction, which occurred outside the house. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence.
However, the Court acquitted Aspiras of illegal possession. The warrantless seizure of the two brick-sized marijuana packages from inside his dwelling did not fall under any recognized exception to the search warrant requirement. The seizure was not incidental to a lawful arrest, as the arrest was effected outside the house for the completed sale. The “plain view” doctrine was also inapplicable. The prosecution failed to prove that the contents of the plastic bag were immediately apparent as marijuana to the seizing officer, as the bag was not shown to be transparent or its contents otherwise obvious. Consequently, the bricks of marijuana were inadmissible as evidence. Without this evidence, the corpus delicti for possession was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that when evidence admits two interpretations, one consistent with innocence and another with guilt, the interpretation favoring innocence must prevail.