People v.

Musa
GR 96177, 27 January 1993

FACTS:
A civilian informer gave the information that Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in
Suterville, Zamboanga City. Sgt. Ani was ordered by NARCOM leader T/Sgt. Belarga, to conduct a
surveillance and test buy on Musa. The civilian informer guided Ani to Musas house and gave the
description of Musa. Ani was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for P10.00.
The next day, a buy-bust was planned. Ani was to raise his right hand if he successfully buys
marijuana from Musa. As Ani proceeded to the house, the NARCOM team positioned themselves
about 90 to 100 meters away. From his position, Belarga could see what was going on. Musa came
out of the house and asked Ani what he wanted. Ani said he wanted more marijuana and gave Musa
the P20.00 marked money. Musa went into the house and came back, giving Ani two newspaper
wrappers containing dried marijuana. Ani opened and inspected it. He raised his right hand as a
signal to the other NARCOM agents, and the latter moved in and arrested Musa inside the house.
Belarga frisked Musa in the living room but did not find the marked money (gave it to his wife who
slipped away). T/Sgt. Belarga and Sgt. Lego went to the kitchen and found a cellophane colored
white and stripe hanging at the corner of the kitchen. They asked Musa about its contents but failed
to get a response. So they opened it and found dried marijuana leaves inside. Musa was then placed
under arrest.

ISSUE: Whether the seizure of the plastic bag and the marijuana inside it is unreasonable, hence,
inadmissible as evidence

HELD:
Yes. It constituted unreasonable search and seizure thus it may not be admitted as evidence.
The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspects lawful arrest, may extend
beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his
immediate control. Objects in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the
position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The plain
view doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the
accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. It will not justify
the seizure of the object where the incriminating nature of the object is not apparent from the
plain view of the object.
In the case at bar, the plastic bag was not in the plain view of the police. They arrested the
accused in the living room and moved into the kitchen in search for other evidences where they
found the plastic bag. Furthermore, the marijuana inside the plastic bag was not immediately
apparent from the plain view of said object.
Therefore, the plain view does not apply. The plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be
presented in evidence pursuant to Article III Section 3 (2) of the Constitution.