People vs. Aminnudin

The State (P) vs. Suspected Drug Trafficker (D)
GR 74869, July 6, 1988 (163 SCRA 402)	[T]

Summary: A suspected drug trafficker was identified several days before his arrival on board a ship. On the ship's arrival, the informant pointed the suspect out as he was disembarking from the ship and a search of his bag revealed marijuana.

Rule of Law: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable.

Facts: Idel Aminnudin (D) was arrested shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30pm. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for Aminnudin (D) simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked like marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from Aminnudin (D) and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. When they were verified as marijuana leaves, an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against Aminnudin (D).

The PC officers had earlier received a tip from one of their informers that the Aminnudin (D) was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. Aminnudin (D) was identified by name. As Aminnudin (D) descended from the gangplank after the informer had pointed to him. They detained Aminnudin (D) and inspected the bag he was carrying. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. On the basis of this finding, the corresponding charge was then filed against Aminnudin (D).

Issues: Is the warrantless search valid? Is the subsequent warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: No. There was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the prosecution, Aminnudin (D) was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could not be invoked to dispense with the warrant. In Roldan vs. Arca, the vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches and seizures for violation of the customs law because these vehicles may be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction before the warrant can be secured.

The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin (D) who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant.

Without the evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from Aminnudin (D), the case of the prosecution must fall. That evidence cannot be admitted, and should never have been considered by the trial court for the simple fact is that the marijuana was seized illegally. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree, to use Justice Holmes' felicitous phrase. The search was not an incident of a lawful arrest because there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did not come under the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court. Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible.