People of the Philippines v. Alberto.pdf

hfhfhjfjhfjfhfjhfjhf

1. People of the Philippines v.
Alberto
G.R. No. 247906, February 10, 2021
?
??
??Arrests, Searches, and Seizures

2. FactsFacts
Accused-appellants Salvador Agunday Alberto II and Mary Jane Turalde Vargas were
charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The charge stemmed from an incident on
July 31, 2009, in Pasay City, where they were accused of conspiring to transport 887.88
grams of heroin from the Pinoy Family Club Hotel to the Ninoy Aquino International
Airport (NAIA).
The prosecution's case was initiated based on information received by Special
Investigator Joel Otic, whom a confidential informant informed that Vargas, identified
as a courier, would be arriving from Malaysia with illegal drugs. Following this tip, NBI
operatives monitored Vargas at the hotel, where she met with Alberto. They were
observed exchanging bags, after which Alberto left for NAIA carrying a black trolley
bag.
?

3. FactsFacts
Upon arrival at NAIA, NBI operatives approached Alberto, informed him of the
suspicion regarding the contents of his bag, and invited him to the NBI office for
questioning. Vargas was also invited to accompany them. At the NBI office, the bags
were searched in the presence of witnesses, revealing the heroin concealed within.
Both accused-appellants denied the charges, claiming that their arrest and the
subsequent search were illegal. They argued that they were not informed of their
rights, and that the search was conducted without proper consent or a warrant.
?

4. ISSUEISSUE
?
Whether or not the warrantless arrest and
warrantless search were valid and in compliance
with the constitutional provisions on the
protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures

5. RULINGRULING
?
YES, the court concurred that the validity of the warrantless search
conducted against them as well as their warrantless arrest were
established.
A search may be conducted even in the absence of a warrant under the
following circumstances: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest; (2)
seizure of evidence in "plain view;" (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4)
consented warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and
(7) exigent and emergency circumstances.

6. RULINGRULING
The search conducted in this case was a consented warrantless search. Consent to a warrantless search must
be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given, and unattended by duress or coercion. Mere passive conformity or
silence is insufficient. In order to determine the validity of a supposedly consented warrantless search, the
totality of the attendant circumstances is considered. This includes the environment in which the consent was
ostensibly given, such as the presence of coercive police procedures.
In this case, Senior Investigator Escurel explained that they waited for the witnesses whose presence are
required under R.A. 9165. Thus the search on the bags was not conducted immediately. The NBI operatives
simply guarded the accused appellant while waiting for the witnesses. They also explained to the accused
appellant why they were invited to the NBI office. Accused-appellants retained custody of the bags while
waiting for the witnesses. And though Alberto claimed that Senior Investigator Otic asked him to admit what is
inside the bag, it reiterates that plaintiff-appellee did not submit evidence of an admission from Alberto. In
addition, accused-appellants did not allege during their testimony that they were physically harmed by the NBI
operatives.

7. THANK YOU!
DIGESTED BY:
NICHOLAS JOHN H. CABANTUG