Admissible evidence

Admissible evidence | Daily Tribune

Dear Atty. Angela,

I am a police officer and was part of the buy-bust operation team that apprehended a drug dealer. During the buy bust, the dealer handed over one sachet of cocaine. When he was arrested, an officer conducted a body search and found six more sachets of cocaine hidden in his pockets and shoes. He is now questioning the validity of the additional sachets to be used as evidence since these were not in plain view when seized during his arrest. Are the additional six sachets admissible as evidence?

Dear Danny,

Searches and seizures generally require a warrant. When police performs a search or seize property without a valid warrant, any evidence obtained cannot be used in court and is considered inadmissible. However, there are recognized exceptions to this rule.

Aside from the plain view doctrine, another recognized exception is a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. To be valid, it must meet these conditions: (1) the accused is lawfully arrested, (2) the arresting officers subsequently made a warrantless search, (3) the search is limited to the person of the accused and the area within the accused’s immediate control, and (4) the search is performed at the place of the arrest (Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure).

In People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 255749 (2025), the Supreme Court found that dealer was arrested during a buy-bust operation and was frisked as part of the arrest. While the sachets hidden were not in the officer’s plain view, the SC held that the warrantless search remained valid because it was done as part of a lawful arrest.

To convict a person of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the drug, that the possession was not authorized by law, and that it was done knowingly and freely. All these elements were present.

In this case, the search revealed three additional sachets of cocaine were hidden and the dealer could not explain why he had the drugs in his possession nor show any authority allowing him to possess them. Thus, despite the warrantless search, the six sachets of cocaine found hidden in his immediate control can be used and admitted as evidence.

Atty. Angela Antonio