GR 87367; (February, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 87367 February 19, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PETER ALFONSO y ABLAZA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On September 2, 1988, in Acop, Tublay, Benguet, NARCOM agents, including PO1 Arturo Ellazar, were manning a checkpoint to intercept drug traffickers. They noticed accused-appellant Peter Alfonso sneak out from the back of a truck and start running. Ellazar gave chase, and during the pursuit, Alfonso threw the multi-colored bag he was carrying at Ellazar, causing its contents—eight bundles of dried leaves—to scatter. Ellazar picked up the bundles while M/Sgt. Rogelio Raguine continued the chase and apprehended Alfonso in a sayote plantation. The seized items were examined by forensic chemist Capt. Valentino Gaerlan and found positive for marijuana. Alfonso presented a different version, claiming he was carrying a loan of P20,000.00 to buy a lot and was asked by a townmate, Maria Codasa, to deliver the bag to her son in Baguio. He alleged he ran upon seeing the checkpoint because he feared the men were hold-uppers, not knowing the bag contained marijuana. He denied inspecting the open bag. The trial judge found his testimony and that of his corroborating witnesses not credible, noting his demeanor and the “well rehearsed” nature of the defense.
ISSUE
Whether the marijuana seized is admissible as evidence against Alfonso, considering the claim of an illegal warrantless search and seizure.
RULING
The appeal is DISMISSED and the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED. The marijuana is admissible. The Court ruled there was no search at all, as Ellazar merely picked up the bundles Alfonso himself had scattered on the road. When apprehended, Alfonso no longer had the marijuana on his person, so no seizure was made from him. Even assuming a search or seizure occurred, it was lawful under the “open to eye and hand” doctrine, as the agents simply stumbled upon the evidence in plain view. The prosecution, aided by the incredible and unsubstantiated defense, proved Alfonso’s guilt for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act beyond reasonable doubt.