Scribd
Upload
120 views

People v. Musa 404 SCRA 135: Contention of The State

The Supreme Court ruled the seizure of a plastic bag containing marijuana found in Mari Musa's kitchen was illegal and inadmissible as evidence. [1] A buy-bust operation was conducted based on an informer's tip that Musa was selling marijuana. [2] Musa was arrested after selling marijuana to the undercover agent. [3] However, the Court found the plastic bag in the kitchen was not in plain view, as the agents had to open it to discover its contents, and suppressed it as evidence due to the illegal search and seizure.

Uploaded by

RC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
120 views

People v. Musa 404 SCRA 135: Contention of The State

The Supreme Court ruled the seizure of a plastic bag containing marijuana found in Mari Musa's kitchen was illegal and inadmissible as evidence. [1] A buy-bust operation was conducted based on an informer's tip that Musa was selling marijuana. [2] Musa was arrested after selling marijuana to the undercover agent. [3] However, the Court found the plastic bag in the kitchen was not in plain view, as the agents had to open it to discover its contents, and suppressed it as evidence due to the illegal search and seizure.

Uploaded by

RC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People v.

Musa 404 SCRA 135

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. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of P20,000, the latter imposed without
subsidiary imprisonment.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE:

The trial court issued an order ruling that the marijuana leaves in the plastic bag are admissible in
evidence.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:

The seizure and admission as evidence of a plastic bag containing marijuana which the NARCOM agents
found in the appellant's kitchen are inadmissible as evidence. Belarga and Lego only knew what was in
the cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the corner of the kitchen when they opened it and
found dried marijuana leaves.

RULING:

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. 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.

You might also like