PEOPLE VS. TABAR
FACTS:
Respondent-accused was
charged, together with her nephew, for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act in
an information which provided that:
That on or about the 8th day of February 1989,
at about 3:00 PM. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together
and mutually helping each other, with deliberate intent, did then and there
sell and deliver, without authority of law, Three (3) sticks of marijuana
cigarettes, a (sic) prohibited drugs, to a person who posted himself as
a buyer, in Viol. of Sec. 4, Art. 11, of RA 6425, as amended, otherwise known
as the Dangerous Act of 1972.
The accused were then
convicted of the offense charged against them in the trial court.
On appeal, respondent
presented her argument that the lower court erred in admitting the evidence
against her when there wasn’t any search warrant. Therefore, violating the
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
ISSUE: WON there was a violation against the constitutional
guarantee of individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.
RULING:
The second assigned
error is without merit. The evidence for the prosecution discloses that the
appellant placed the packs of marijuana sticks under the rolled pair of pants
which she was then carrying at the time she hurriedly left her shanty after
noticing the arrest of Rommel. When she was asked to spread it out, which she
voluntary did, the package containing the packs of marijuana sticks were thus
exposed in plain view to the member of the team. A crime was thus committed in
the presence of the policemen. Pursuant to Section 5, Rule 113 and Section 12
Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, she could lawfully be arrested and
searched for anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an
offense without the corresponding arrest and search warrants
Even assuming ex gratia argumenti that the seach and seizure were
without a warrant, the appellant had effectively waived her constitutional
right relative thereto by voluntarily submitting to the seach and seizure. In People vs. Malasugui, 20 this Court ruled:
When one voluntarily submits to a search and consent to
have it made of his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining
thereof. The right to be secure from unreasonable seach may, like every right,
be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.