FACTS:

Jesus Nuevas, Reynaldo Din, and Fernando Inocencio were charged with illegal possession of marijuana. The police officers testified that they conducted surveillance and saw Nuevas carrying a plastic bag containing marijuana. Nuevas then pointed to the police officers the location of Din and Inocencio, who were also found carrying marijuana. The police officers confiscated the drugs and brought the accused to the police office for documentation. Nuevas claimed that he was forced to carry the bag by one of the police officers, while Din stated that he did not know Nuevas or Inocencio.

The appellants, Reynaldo Din and Fernando Inocencio, were convicted for illegal possession of marijuana. The arresting officers received information from an asset about a person who was going to deliver marijuana. They saw Jesus Nuevas carrying a bag and Nuevas voluntarily handed it over to them, which was found to contain marijuana. Din and Inocencio were subsequently arrested based on their association with Nuevas. The issue raised pertains to the validity of the warrantless searches and seizure by the police officers and the admissibility of the evidence obtained.

Reynaldo Din and Fernando Inocencio were apprehended by the team led by Jesus Nuevas. The apprehension occurred as part of a continued operation by the team. The apprehension of Nuevas was based on probable cause, and the same probable cause justified the apprehension of Din and Inocencio. During their apprehension, marijuana leaves were recovered from Din and Inocencio. The Court emphasized the practicality and expediency of warrantless arrests in certain situations.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the searches and seizures conducted in this case fall under any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.

2. Whether the searches conducted on the plastic bags were justified as a search incidental to a lawful arrest or under the plain view doctrine.

3. Whether the search conducted in Nuevas's case was legal.

4. Whether the search conducted in Din's case was legal.

5. Whether Din intentionally surrendered his right against unreasonable searches.

6. Whether Din's silence at the time can be construed as an implied acquiescence to the warrantless search.

7. Whether the dried marijuana leaves can be admitted as evidence against Din.

8. Whether the appellants' entering of their plea and their active participation in the trial waived any defect in their arrest.

9. Whether Inocencio was wrongly convicted of the crime charged.

RULING:

1. The searches and seizures conducted in this case do not fall under any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.

2. • The Court held that the searches and seizures cannot be justified as a search incidental to a lawful arrest because the arrest did not precede the search, and the police officers did not have personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the persons to be arrested had committed an offense.
3. • Additionally, the searches cannot be justified under the plain view doctrine because the dried marijuana leaves inside the plastic bags were not readily apparent or transparent to the police officers.

4. The search conducted in Nuevas's case was legal. The court found that Nuevas voluntarily surrendered the incriminating bag to the police officers and consented to the search.

5. The search conducted in Din's case was illegal. The court found that no consent was actually given by Din for the search, as the testimonies of the police officers were inconsistent and raised doubts on the voluntariness of Din's submission of the plastic bag.

6. The prosecution failed to clearly show that Din intentionally surrendered his right against unreasonable searches. Fami's and Cabling's testimonies did not provide sufficient basis for the surrender of the bag. There was no mention of any permission or consent given by Din for the officers to search the bag. Without clear and positive proof of consent, the validity of the warrantless search cannot be upheld.

7. Din's silence at the time cannot be construed as an implied acquiescence to the warrantless search. The court held that peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law.

8. Without the dried marijuana leaves as evidence, Din's conviction cannot be sustained based on the remaining evidence. The conviction of the accused must rest on the strength of the prosecution, not the weakness of the defense, and therefore, Din deserves an acquittal.

9. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. Despite any alleged waiver, the dried marijuana leaves seized during a warrantless search cannot be admitted as evidence against Din.

10. Inocencio was wrongly convicted of the crime charged. Merely looking into the plastic bag held by Din is not the same as taking possession thereof. The prosecution failed to show by convincing proof that Inocencio knew of the contents of the bag and conspired with Din to possess the illegal items.

PRINCIPLES:

• A search and seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant, unless it falls under one of the exceptions recognized by the Constitution. The exceptions include: warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, search of evidence in plain view, search of a moving vehicle, consented warrantless search, customs search, stop and frisk, and exigent and emergency circumstances.

• In instances where a warrant is not necessary, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is determined by the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which it was conducted, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.

• A search incidental to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. The arrest must precede the search, unless the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.

• The plain view doctrine allows the seizure of evidence without a warrant if the object is plainly exposed to sight and its contents are immediately apparent to the police. If the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains prohibited articles, then the article is in plain view.

• The constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be waived.

• In order to validate an otherwise illegal detention and search, the consent to a search must be voluntary, unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.

• The consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.

• The State has the burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given.

• To constitute a waiver of the constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it is fundamental that (1) the right to the guarantee exists, and (2) the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right.

• In order for a person to waive the protection against unreasonable searches, it must be shown that they had knowledge of the existence of such right and had an actual intention to relinquish it.

• Peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or invitation thereto, but a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law.

• The conviction of the accused must rest on the strength of the prosecution, not the weakness of the defense.

• The waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not waive the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the arrest.