People Vs Aminudin

[G.R. No. 74869. July 6, 1988.
]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI, defendant-appellant.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHTS

AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES;
WARRANTLESS ARREST AND SEIZURE BASED ON AN
INFORMER'S TIP, AT A TIME WHEN ACCUSED WAS NOT
COMMITTING A CRIME, ILLEGAL; EVIDENCE OBTAINED,
INADMISSIBLE. Where it is not disputed that the PC
officers had no warrant when they arrested Aminnudin
while he was descending the gangplank of the M/V
Wilcon 9 and seized the bag he was carrying, and that
their only justification was the tip they had earlier
received from a reliable and regular informer who
reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving in Iloilo
by boat with marijuana, the search was not an
incident of a lawful arrest because there was no
warrant of arrest and 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 was inadmissible.
Facts:
The accused-appellant claimed his business was
selling watches but he was nonetheless arrested, tried
and found guilty of illegally transporting marijuana.
The trial court, disbelieving him, held it was high time
to put him away and sentenced him to life
imprisonment plus a fine of P20,000.00.
Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly
after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about
8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City. The PC officers who
were in fact waiting for him simply accosted him,
inspected his bag and finding what looked liked
marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for
investigation. The two bundles of suspect articles
were confiscated from him 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 him. Later,
the information was amended to include Farida Ali y
Hassen, who had also been arrested with him that
same evening and likewise investigated. Both were
arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the
fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali
on the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting
officers absolving her after a "thorough investigation."
The motion was granted, and trial proceeded only
against the accused-appellant, who was eventually
convicted.
According to the prosecution, the PC officers had
earlier received a tip from one of their informers that
the accused-appellant was on board a vessel bound
for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. He was
identified by name. Acting on this tip, they waited for
him in the evening of June 25, 1984, and approached
him as he descended from the gangplank after the
informer had pointed to him. They detained him 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, who
testified that she conducted microscopic, chemical
and chromatographic tests on them. On the basis of
this finding, the corresponding charge was then filed
against Aminnudin.
Issue:
Whether or not search of defendants bag is legal.
Ruling:
The mandate of the Bill of Rights is clear:
"Sec. 2. 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, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized."
In the case at bar, 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 government,
the accused-appellant 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 obtention of
the warrant as in the case of Roldan v. Arca, for
example.Here it was held that 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 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. Yet they
did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the
law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because
the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting
team, had determined on his own authority that
"search warrant was not necessary."
In the many cases where this Court has sustained the
warrantless arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs
Act, it has always been shown that they were caught
red-handed, as result of what are popularly called
"buy-bust" operations of the narcotics agents. Rule
113 was clearly applicable because at the precise
time of arrest the accused was in the act of selling the
prohibited drug.
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at
the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was
it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just
done so. What he was doing was descending the
gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no
outward indication that called for his arrest. To all
appearances, he was like any of the other passengers
innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only
when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the
marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so
subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger that
triggered his arrest. The identification by the informer
was the probable cause as determined by the officers
(and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce
upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.

People Vs Aminudin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Aminudin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Aminudin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 74869. July 6, 1988.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHTS

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.