People vs. Elamparo

The Government (P) vs. Drug Dealer (D)
GR 121572, March 31, 2000 (329 SCRA 402)	[T]

Summary: A buy-bust operation led the pursuing officers of a drug runner into the house of his alleged supplier/dealer. In the house, they witnessed the alleged dealer repacking bricks of marijuana and arrested him.

Rule of Law: A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person, when in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

Facts: Joel Elamparo (D) has been convicted with Illegal Possession of Drugs and penalized with reclusion perpetua. The case was raised for automatic review.

Police Officer Baldonado of Caloocan City Police received a report from an informant that "some people are selling shabu and marijuana somewhere in Bagong Bario, Caloocan City." Thus, Baldonado organized a buy-bust team and deployed at a known "market" for buyers of marijuana. Thereafter, a runner approached the poseur-buyer to confirm an order. The runner then left and returned with the marijuana. Gaviola, the poseur-buyer and buy-bust team member, then handed over the marked money and arrested the runner who freed himself and ran.

The buy-bust team pursued the runner, who ran inside a bungalow-type house with steel gate. Having trapped the runner inside the house, the police officers frisked him and recovered the marked money. The police officers likewise found Joel Elamparo (D) repacking five bricks of "marijuana" wrapped in a newspaper on top of the round table inside the house. Elamparo (D) was then arrested.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: Yes. Five generally accepted exceptions to the right against warrantless searches and seizures have been judicially formulated: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs searches, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure.

This case falls squarely under the plain view doctrine. In People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668, 710-711 (1999), the Court held that—

Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.

When the runner wrenched himself free from the grasp of Gaviola, he instinctively ran towards the house of Elamparo (D). The members of the buy-bust team were justified in running after him and entering the house without a search warrant for they were pursuing a fleeing criminal. Once inside the house, the police officers cornered the runner and recovered the buy-bust money from him. They also caught Elamparo (D) in flagrante delicto repacking the marijuana bricks which were in full view on tap of a table.