PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs BELEN MARIACOS
GR NO. 188611 June 16 2010
FACTS:
October 27, 2005 in Brgy
Balbalayang, PO2 Pallayoc met with secret agent of the Barangay Intelligence
Network who informed him that a baggage of marijuana had been loaded in a
passenger jeepney that was about to leave for the poblacion. The agent
mentioned 3 bags and 1 plastic bag. Further, the agent described a backpack bag
with O.K. marking. PO2 Pallayoc boarded the said jeepney and positioned himself
on top thereof. He found bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspapers. He them
asked the other passengers about the owner of the bag, but no one know.
When the jeepney reached the
poblacion, PO2 Pallayoc alighted together with other passengers. Unfortunately,
he did not noticed who took the black backpack from atop the jeepney. He only
realized a few moments later that the said bag and 3 other bags were already
being carried away by two (2) women. He caught up with the women and introduced
himself as a policeman. He told them that they were under arrest, but on the
women got away.
DOCTRINES:
ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 OF THE
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES: 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.
Purpose: MOVING VEHICLE
(WARRANTLESS SEARCH)
A. This
has been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it
possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
B. This
is no way, however, gives the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct
warrantless searches of automobiles in the absence of probable cause when a
vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extension search, such a warrantless
search has been held to be valid only as long as officers conducting the search
have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will
find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to
be searched.
MALUM PROHIBITUM
When an accused is charged
with illegal possession or transportation of prohibited drugs, the ownership
thereof is immaterial. Consequently, proof of ownership of the confiscated
marijuana is not necessary.
Appellant’s alleged lack of
knowledge does not constitute a valid defence. Lack of criminal intent and good
faith are not exempting circumstances where the crime charge is malum
prohibitum
