GR 200334; (July, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 200334 , July 30, 2014
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee, vs. VICTOR COGAED y ROMANA, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
On November 25, 2005, Police Senior Inspector Sofronio Bayan received a text message from an unidentified informant that a person named Marvin Buya would be transporting marijuana. A checkpoint was set up. A jeepney arrived, and its driver signaled to SPO1 Jaime Taracatac, Jr., pointing to two male passengers, later identified as Victor Cogaed and Santiago Dayao. Cogaed was carrying a blue bag and a sack. SPO1 Taracatac asked about the bags’ contents. Cogaed and Dayao stated they did not know, as they were transporting them as a favor for their barriomate, Marvin. Cogaed then opened the blue bag, revealing three bricks of suspected marijuana, and made an incriminating statement. They were arrested and brought to the police station, where more marijuana was found in their bags. The total weight seized was 17,429.6 grams. Cogaed was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Cogaed appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the evidence was obtained through an unlawful warrantless search and seizure.
ISSUE
Whether the warrantless search and seizure conducted on the accused-appellant was valid and reasonable, rendering the seized marijuana admissible as evidence.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure were unreasonable and violated Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution . The search was not a valid “stop and frisk” as there was no reasonable suspicion based on the police officers’ personal knowledge; the information came solely from an anonymous text message and the driver’s pointing. The accused was not committing a crime in plain view, nor was there a lawful arrest preceding the search. The Court found that the accused’s act of opening the bag did not constitute a valid waiver of his constitutional rights, as it was not shown to be intelligent, knowing, and voluntary under the circumstances. Consequently, the seized marijuana was inadmissible as evidence under the exclusionary rule. With no admissible evidence to support the conviction, accused-appellant Victor Cogaed y Romana was ACQUITTED.