RA Law & Accounting Office

RA Law & Accounting Office

Share

Accounting and Law Office - Notary Public

Photos from Bureau of Internal Revenue Philippines's post 06/05/2026
25/02/2026
25/02/2026

The (SC) has reiterated that search made after a lawful arrest extends to the surroundings within the immediate control of the accused and evidence obtained during such search is admissible even if they are not within the โ€œplain viewโ€ of the arresting officers.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SCโ€™s First Division upheld the conviction of Jeryl Bautista for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165, or the ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฑ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜‹๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜จ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ด ๐˜‹๐˜ณ๐˜ถ๐˜จ๐˜ด ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง 2002, as amended.

During a buy-bust operation, a police officer posed as a buyer and received from Bautista ๐˜ด๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฃ๐˜ถ in exchange for PHP 500. After the officer made a pre-arranged signal, the rest of the arresting team rushed to the place of the transaction.

Bautista was arrested and a representative from the Department of Justice, and two barangay kagawads arrived shortly after.

Subsequently, the officer searched Bautista and found three more sachets of suspected ๐˜ด๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฃ๐˜ถ hidden inside a cellphone charger. The officer also found a cellphone, screwdriver, weighing scale, and marked money. The police then marked the four sachets, prepared an inventory of the seized items, and took photographs.

Bautista argued that the additional sachets should not be admitted as evidence because they were not within the plain view of the police officers when seized during his arrest.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both convicted Bautista of illegal possession of ๐˜ด๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฃ๐˜ถ.

The SC upheld Bautistaโ€™s conviction and rejected his argument. It explained that the plain view doctrine is not the only justification for a warrantless search, as the search could be done to a person who has just been lawfully arrested.

Searches and seizures generally require a warrant. If police perform 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.

One of these is the plain view doctrine, which allows police officers to seize evidence in plain sight when: (1) the officer has a lawful reason to be in the place where the item is seen, (2) the discovery of the item is unplanned or incidental, and (3) it is immediately obvious that the item is connected to a crime or is illegal.

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 accusedโ€™s immediate control, and (4) the search is performed at the place of the arrest.

In this case, Bautista was arrested during a buy-bust operation. He was frisked as part of the arrest. While the sachets hidden inside his cellphone charger were not in the officersโ€™ plain view, the SC held that the warrantless search remained valid because it was done as part of a lawful arrest and the search extended to those that are within the immediate control of the accused at the time of the 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.

The SC found that all these elements were present. The search revealed three additional sachets of ๐˜ด๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฃ๐˜ถ hidden inside a cellphone charger. Bautista could not explain why he had the drugs nor show any authority allowing him to possess them. His act of hiding the sachets inside the charger also showed his intent to keep them.

Bautista was sentenced to a maximum of 16 years in prison and ordered to pay a fine of PHP 300,000.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161226

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161221

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOโ€™s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

Photos from RA Law & Accounting Office's post 21/02/2026

RA Law & Accounting Office is now open to assist you in your legal, accounting and tax concerns. Contact us at:

๐Ÿ“ง [email protected]
โ˜Ž๏ธ 09081684330

(Consultation and Notarial Services: By appointment only)

Want your business to be the top-listed Government Service in Davao City?

Click here to claim your Sponsored Listing.

Location

Category

Website

Address

Door 1, Urban Cubes, Kawayan Drive, Matina Aplaya
Davao City
8000