G.R. No. 212340 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. GERRJAN MANAGO Y ACUT, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. [21] Echoing its earlier findings in its May 31, 2007 Order, the RTC found that the police officers conducted a valid warrantless search of a moving vehicle, considering that PO3 Din positively identified the red Toyota Corolla, then being driven by Manago, as the getaway vehicle in the March 15, 2007 robbery incident. Thus, the item found in the search, i.e. , the plastic sachet containing shabu obtained from Manago, is admissible in evidence and is enough to sustain a conviction against him for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. [22] Manago moved for reconsideration [23] and applied for bail pending appeal, which were, however, both denied in an Omnibus Order [24] dated May 12, 2009. Aggrieved, Manago appealed his conviction before the CA. [25] The CA Proceedings Upon Manago's motion to post bail, the CA rendered a Resolution [26] dated August 13, 2010, allowing Manago to post bail in the amount of P200,000.00, noting that the quantity of the shabu seized from him was only 0.3852 grams, thus bailable, and that the Office of the Solicitor General did not oppose Manago's motion. [27] In a Decision [28] dated May 20, 2013, the CA affirmed Manago conviction in toto . It held that the police officers conducted a valid hot pursuit operation against Manago, considering that PO3 Din personally identified him as the one driving the red Toyota Corolla vehicle used in the March 15, 2007 robbery incident. As such, the CA concluded that the warrantless arrest conducted against Manago was valid, and consequently, the plastic sachet seized from him containing shabu is admissible in evidence as it was done incidental to a lawful arrest. [29] Undaunted, Manago moved for reconsideration, [30] which was denied in a Resolution [31] dated November 6, 2013; hence, the instant appeal. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Manage's conviction for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld. The Court's Ruling The appeal is meritorious. Section 2, Article III [32] of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of the said constitutional provision . To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2), Article III [33] of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In other words, evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any p