J-LAW Office

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 “plain view” of the arresting officers.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division upheld the conviction of Jeryl Bautista for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165, or the 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘋𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2002, as amended.

During a buy-bust operation, a police officer posed as a buyer and received from Bautista 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 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 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 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 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶.

The SC upheld Bautista’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 accused’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 officers’ 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 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 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 PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

The (SC) has reiterated that banks may be held liable for moral damages suffered by depositors due to negligence, even if there is no proof of bad faith or malice.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division ordered Banco de Oro (BDO) to pay Remedios and Angelita Antonino (Antoninos) the proceeds of their time deposit, including PHP 100,000 in moral damages.

The Antoninos, who are U.S. green card holders living abroad, made three time deposit placements totaling over USD 150,000 at BDO’s San Lorenzo Branch in Makati City (BDO San Lorenzo). They had an arrangement with the branch manager that if the deposits were not withdrawn at maturity, they would automatically roll over into interest-bearing savings accounts. The time deposit certificates (TDCs) were not redeemed and were stored in a Banco Filipino deposit box for safekeeping.

Later, Banco Filipino declared bankruptcy and was taken over by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). It took the Antoninos some time to retrieve their TDCs from the PDIC.
BDO San Lorenzo then ceased operations and closed down without notifying the Antoninos, who only discovered the closure when they tried to withdraw their investments.

They sent several demand letters to BDO, but the bank claimed the deposits had already been withdrawn, citing a demand draft allegedly signed by Angelita. Angelita denied signing the document.

The Antoninos filed a complaint against BDO seeking payment of their time deposit placements.

Ruling in favor of the Antoninos, the SC cited Section 9 of BDO’s terms and conditions for time deposit placements, which requires the surrender of TDCs when withdrawing deposits. Since the Antoninos still had the certificates, the SC concluded that the funds were not withdrawn.

The SC noted that the PNP expert said the signature on the demand draft was likely forged. Immigration and passport records also showed Angelita could not have been in the country to sign the draft. Further, BDO failed to verify the identity of the person who withdrew the funds.

The SC held that these lapses showed BDO’s failure to exercise the required diligence, especially given the large amount involved.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152203.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152187.

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

Update (Oct 6): Position filled.
Thank you for the overwhelming interest!

📣📣📣We’re Hiring‼️‼️‼️

J-LAW Office and Morales-Bonsorio Law Office is looking for a Law Office Staff Member to join our team.

We’re looking for someone who is:
✔️ Organized and professional
✔️ Discreet and trustworthy
✔️ Excellent with people and paperwork
✔️ Skilled in both communication and administrative work
✔️ Committed to serving others with integrity, humility, and a heart aligned with purpose

📩 To apply, please email your resume to: [email protected] or visit our law office at 2F Lapu-Lapu cor. Vinzon Sts., Zone 3, Digos City, Davao del Sur
📲 For inquiries, please call 09519470664

Join a team where faith meets function, and where your work truly makes a difference.