People v Doria, Gaddao

Facts:
Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged with violation of Section 4, in relation to
Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. They were caught during a buy-bust operation
with the help of the civilian informats. Doria was caught wherein the PO3 Manlangit disguised as
a buyer of marijuana. Thereafter, Manlangit and his companion asked Doria where the money
was, Doria then pointed at the house of Violeta Gaddao. Upon arrival, Manlangit found Gaddao
and noticed a carton box under the dining table. He peeked inside the box and found that it
contained ten (10) bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.
Contention of the accused-appellants: Doria was directed to point out the house of one totoy
the husband of Gaddao. Upon arrival, the Manlangit seized Violeta and found a box containing
Marijauna in the house. Gaddao had no knowledge of the illegal drug.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 156, Pasig City convicted the accused-appellants.
The trial court found the existence of an "organized/syndicated crime group" and sentenced
both accused-appellants to death and pay a fine of P500, 000.00 each.
Issue:
1.

Whether the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is unlawful

Held:
No. warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are
allowed in three instances as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, to wit:
"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. -- A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he
"has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." Appellant
Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in
flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not only authorized but
duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.
Note: Doria was arrested through Entrapment

Issue:
2. Whether the lower court erred in upholding the validity of the warrantless search leading
to the seizure of the marijuana allegedly found inside the house of accused-appellant
(Gaddao)
Held:
Yes. The lower court erred in upholding the warrantless search and seizure of the accusedappellants house.
"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. -- A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In the case of Gaddao, she was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made
by her co-accused. In fact, she was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced
on her. Furthermore, Appellant Doria did not point to appellant Gaddao as his associate in the
drug business, but as the person with whom he left the marked bills. This identification does not
necessarily lead to the conclusion that appellant Gaddao conspired with her co-accused in
pushing drugs. Appellant Doria may have left the money in her house, with or without her
knowledge, with or without any conspiracy. Save for accused-appellant Doria's word, the
Narcom agents had no reasonable grounds to believe that she was engaged in drug pushing. If
there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right,
knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a criminal offense, the
arrest is legally objectionable.
Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao was illegal, it follows that the search
of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot
be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest. It cannot also be attested that the marijuana was
found under the plain view doctrine and thus admissible because it requires the following
requisites.
a) The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion
or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(b) The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent;

(c) It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a
crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
In the case, the marijuana cannot be admitted as an evidence because PO3 Manlangit did not
know exactly what the box contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its
contents. The marijuana was not in plain view and its seizure without the requisite search
warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution. It was fruit of the poisonous tree and
should have been excluded and never considered by the trial court.
Hence, Violeta Gaddao is acquitted