GR 229071; (December, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 229071, December 10, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EANNA O’COCHLAIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
On July 14, 2013, at Laoag City International Airport, security personnel were alerted by the smell of marijuana in the parking area. A male Caucasian, later identified as accused-appellant Eanna O’Cochlain, was observed acting suspiciously. Upon reaching the final security checkpoint, O’Cochlain consented to a pat-down search. A security officer felt items in his pockets and asked him to produce them. O’Cochlain retrieved, among other things, a pack of Marlboro cigarettes from his right pocket which contained two rolled sticks of suspected marijuana leaves. The items were turned over to police investigators.
At the police office, an inventory was conducted in the presence of O’Cochlain, barangay officials, and a media representative. The seized items were marked, photographed, and later confirmed by forensic examination to be marijuana. O’Cochlain was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. O’Cochlain appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the search was illegal and the chain of custody was broken.
ISSUE
Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the marijuana from O’Cochlain was valid, and whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The search was valid as a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. The initial information from security personnel about the smell of marijuana and O’Cochlain’s suspicious behavior provided probable cause. When he voluntarily produced the cigarette pack during the pat-down, the contraband was in plain view, justifying seizure. The Court found the arrest lawful, thus the incidental search was valid.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled the integrity of the evidence was preserved. The marking, physical inventory, and photographing were done immediately at the police office in the presence of the accused, required witnesses (barangay officials and a media representative), and police officers. While there was a minor deviation as the inventory was not conducted at the place of seizure, the police provided a justifiable ground—the area had become crowded—and the integrity of the evidence was maintained as it remained within sight of the apprehending team and the accused until officially inventoried. The prosecution thus established an unbroken chain of custody, proving the identity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.