SC: Items seized in valid warrantless search admissible even in plain view

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has ruled that items seized during a lawful warrantless search may be admitted as evidence in court even if they were not in plain view of arresting officers.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the Court’s First Division upheld the conviction of Jeryl Bautista for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act (RA) 9165.

Bautista was arrested during a buy-bust operation after he sold a sachet of shabu worth P500 to a police officer who posed as a buyer. Shortly after the transaction, other officers, along with a representative from the Department of Justice and two barangay kagawads, arrived at the scene.

During a body search conducted at the place of arrest, police discovered three additional sachets of suspected shabu concealed inside a cellphone charger. 

Authorities also recovered a cellphone, screwdriver, weighing scale, and the marked money used in the operation. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed.

Bautista argued that the three additional sachets should not be admitted as evidence because they were not in plain view when seized.

The High Court rejected this claim.

While searches and seizures generally require a warrant, the Court emphasized that there are recognized exceptions. One is the “plain view” doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence visible to them under specific conditions. 

Another is a warrantless search conducted as an incident to a lawful arrest.

The Court clarified that the plain view rule is not required when police conduct a search incidental to a valid arrest. 

For such a search to be lawful, the arrest must be valid, the search must follow the arrest, it must be limited to the person arrested and areas within immediate control, and it must be conducted at the place of arrest.

In Bautista’s case, the Court found that all these conditions were met. He was lawfully arrested in a buy-bust operation, and the search was conducted immediately and within the arrest site. 

Although the additional sachets were hidden inside a charger and not visible at first glance, the search remained valid because it was incidental to his arrest.

To secure a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, prosecutors must prove that the accused possessed the drugs, lacked legal authority to do so, and did so knowingly and freely. 

The Court said these elements were established, noting that Bautista failed to explain why he had the additional sachets and presented no authority to possess them. His act of concealing the drugs inside a charger indicated intent to keep them.

Bautista was sentenced to a maximum of 16 years in prison and ordered to pay a fine of P300,000.

The ruling reinforces law enforcement’s authority to conduct searches incidental to lawful arrests, clarifying that evidence discovered during such searches remains admissible even if not immediately visible to officers.