View full case

PEOPLE v. MARI MUSA Y HANTATALU

FACTS:

Appellant Mari Musa appealed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) finding him guilty of selling marijuana. The information filed against appellant alleged that he unlawfully sold two wrappers containing dried marijuana leaves to Sgt. Amado Ani. The prosecution presented three witnesses - Sgt. Amado Ani, T/Sgt. Jesus Belarga, and Athena Elisa P. Anderson. Sgt. Ani acted as the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation conducted against appellant. T/Sgt. Belarga was the NARCOM team leader, and Athena Elisa P. Anderson was the Document Examiner and Forensic Chemist of the PC-INP Crime Laboratory. The evidence presented by the prosecution showed that Sgt. Ani was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana from appellant. The next day, a buy-bust was planned, and Sgt. Ani was assigned as the poseur buyer. Appellant gave Sgt. Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried marijuana, and Sgt. Ani raised his right hand as a pre-arranged signal. Appellant was arrested and the marijuana specimens were turned over to the PC Crime Laboratory for examination, which confirmed the presence of marijuana.

The appellant was charged with selling marijuana. The prosecution presented witnesses including Mrs. Anderson, a chemist, who testified about the examination of the marijuana bought during the buy-bust operation. T. Sgt. Belarga also identified the marijuana and the marked money used in the operation. On the other hand, the defense presented the appellant and his wife as witnesses. The defense alleged that the NARCOM agents entered appellant's house without permission and proceeded to search the premises. They found a red plastic bag, which the appellant claimed he did not know the contents of. The appellant was then handcuffed and brought to the NARCOM office for investigation. The appellant refused to sign a document stating that the marijuana belonged to him. The defense further alleged that the appellant was maltreated by the NARCOM agents, and that four bullets were placed between his fingers and pressed, causing him to lose consciousness. After trial, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine.

This case involves a buy-bust operation conducted by members of the NARCOM against the appellant. The team was composed of Sgt. Ani, Sgt. Lego, and Sgt. Biong, under the supervision of T/Sgt. Belarga. Prior to the operation, Sgt. Ani received a marked P20.00 bill from T/Sgt. Belarga, which was intended to be used in the operation. When they arrived at the location, the NARCOM agents strategically positioned themselves. Sgt. Ani approached the appellant's house, who in turn asked him what he wanted. Sgt. Ani requested for more marijuana and handed him the marked P20.00 bill. The appellant then went back inside the house and returned with two paper wrappers containing marijuana, which he gave to Sgt. Ani. Sgt. Ani observed that there were other people inside the house. After the exchange, Sgt. Ani used the pre-arranged signal of raising his right hand to inform the other NARCOM agents. They entered the house together with Sgt. Ani and proceeded to make the arrest. During the search, the agents were unable to find the marked money and asked the appellant about its whereabouts. The appellant claimed that he had given it to his wife. Upon reviewing the records, the Court found Sgt. Ani's testimony regarding the buy-bust operation, which led to the appellant's apprehension, to be the basis for his prosecution and subsequent proceedings.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appellant and Sgt. Ani transacted with each other despite not knowing each other.

  2. Whether the presence of other people in the appellant's house during the sale of marijuana affects the credibility of Sgt. Ani's testimony.

  3. Whether T/Sgt. Belarga's testimony is credible despite not being able to see the exchange of marijuana between the appellant and Sgt. Ani.

  4. Whether the corroborative testimony of T/Sgt. Belarga strengthens the direct evidence of the prosecution.

  5. Whether the plastic bag containing marijuana found in the appellant's kitchen is admissible as evidence.

  6. Whether the "plain view" doctrine applies in this case when the plastic bag containing marijuana was discovered during a warrantless search.

  7. Whether the incriminating nature of the contents of the plastic bag was immediately apparent from the "plain view" of the object.

  8. Whether the seizure of the marijuana was legal.

RULING:

  1. The contention that the appellant could not have transacted with Sgt. Ani because they do not know each other is without merit. The previous successful transaction between Sgt. Ani and the appellant the day before the buy-bust operation established the appellant's confidence in Sgt. Ani as a buyer. The agreement and acts constituting the sale and delivery of the marijuana are more important than an existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller.

  2. The presence of other people in the appellant's house during the sale does not necessarily prevent the consummation of the illegal sale. The fact that the other people are known to the appellant may have given him some assurance that they will not report him to the authorities. The presence of others can sometimes camouflage the commission of the crime.

  3. T/Sgt. Belarga's testimony, although he did not positively claim to have seen the appellant hand over marijuana to Sgt. Ani, corroborated Sgt. Ani's testimony regarding the exchange of items between the two. T/Sgt. Belarga's distance of 90-100 meters did not render his testimony incredible, as he was able to see Sgt. Ani hand "something" to the appellant and the appellant handing "something" back to Sgt. Ani.

  4. The corroborative testimony of T/Sgt. Belarga strengthens the direct evidence given by Sgt. Ani. The Court ruled that the fact that the police officers who accompanied the poseur-buyer were unable to see exactly what the appellant gave the poseur-buyer will not be fatal to the prosecution's case as long as there exists other evidence, direct or circumstantial, such as the testimony of the poseur-buyer, which is sufficient to prove the consummation of the sale of the prohibited drug.

  5. The plastic bag containing marijuana found in the appellant's kitchen is admissible as evidence. The trial court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest extends 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.

  6. The "plain view" doctrine does not apply in this case. The plastic bag containing marijuana was not within the "plain view" of the NARCOM agents when they arrested the appellant, and they had to move from one portion of the house to another before they saw the plastic bag. Additionally, the incriminating nature of the contents of the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from the "plain view" of the object. Thus, the seizure of the marijuana was held to be illegal.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The agreement and acts constituting the sale and delivery of prohibited drugs are more important than an existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller.

  • The presence of other people during the commission of the crime does not necessarily prevent its consummation.

  • Corroborating testimony can support direct evidence and strengthen its credibility, even if the corroborating witness did not have a clear view of the exchange of prohibited drugs.

  • The fact that police officers accompanying a poseur-buyer cannot see exactly what the appellant gave the poseur-buyer does not invalidate the prosecution's case if there is other evidence, direct or circumstantial, proving the consummation of the sale of prohibited drugs.

  • The warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest allows law enforcement agents to search the person of the arrested individual and the premises or surroundings under his immediate control.

  • Objects in "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 when a police officer inadvertently comes across an incriminating object while not searching for evidence against the accused.

  • The "plain view" doctrine may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures.

  • The subjective belief or suspicion of the police officer regarding the incriminating nature of the object is not sufficient for the application of the "plain view" doctrine; it must be immediately apparent that the items observed may be evidence of a crime or subject to seizure.

  • The "plain view" doctrine does not permit the extension of a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating emerges.

  • In order for the "plain view" doctrine to apply, the incriminating nature of the object must be apparent from its "plain view."

  • The seizure of evidence without a warrant is illegal unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.