The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that items seized during a lawful warrantless search may be used as evidence in court, even if they were not in plain view of arresting officers.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC First Division upheld the conviction of Jeryl Bautista for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Bautista was arrested during a buy-bust operation. A police officer, acting as a poseur-buyer, purchased a sachet of shabu from him for PHP 500. Shortly after the transaction, other police officers arrived along with a representative from the Department of Justice and two barangay kagawads.

After his arrest, Bautista was frisked. During the body search, police found three more sachets of suspected shabu hidden inside a cellphone charger. They also recovered a cellphone, a screwdriver, a weighing scale, and the marked money used in the operation.

The officers marked the four sachets of shabu, prepared an inventory of the seized items, and took photographs.

Bautista argued that the three additional sachets should not be admitted as evidence because they were not in plain view when they were seized.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted Bautista of illegal possession of shabu. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

The High Court explained that while searches and seizures generally require a warrant, there are recognized exceptions. One is the “plain view” doctrine, which allows police to seize items that are clearly visible if certain conditions are met.

However, the Court stressed that the plain view doctrine is not always required. Another exception is a warrantless search conducted as an incident of a lawful arrest. For such a search to be valid:

the person must be lawfully arrested;

the search must follow the arrest;

the search must be limited to the person and the area within his immediate control; and

it must be conducted at the place of arrest.

In Bautista’s case, the Court said the search was valid because it was made immediately after a lawful arrest during the buy-bust operation. Even though the additional sachets were hidden inside a cellphone charger and not visible, the search was still legal as part of the arrest.

To convict someone of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove that the accused possessed the drugs, had no legal authority to do so, and knowingly possessed them.

The Supreme Court found that all these elements were established. The additional sachets were discovered during the search, Bautista had no authority to possess them, and his act of hiding them inside a charger showed intent to keep the drugs.

Bautista was sentenced to up to 16 years in prison and ordered to pay a fine of PHP 300,000.