P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

EN BANC [G.R. No. 125299. January 22, 1999] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPI NES,  plaintiff -appellee, vs. FL ORENCIO DORIA y OLADO, an! "IOLETA GADDAO y CATA#A $ %NENETH,% accused-appellants. D E C I S I O N P&NO,  J .' On December 7, 1995, accused-appellants Florencio Doria y Bolado and ioleta !addao y Catama " #Nenet$# %ere c$ar&ed %it$ 'iolation o( )ection *, in relation to )ection +1 o( t$e Dan&erous Dru&s Act o( 197+ 1.  /$e in(ormation reads0 #/$at on or about t$e 5t$ day o( December, 1995 in t$e City o( andaluyon&, 2$ilippines, a place %it$in t$e 3urisdiction o( t$is 4onorable Court, t$e abo'e-named accused, conspirin&, con(ederatin& and mutually $elpin& and aidin& one anot$er and %it$out $a'in& been aut$oried by la%, did, t$en and t$ere %ill(ully, unla%(ully and (eloniously sell, administer, deli'er and &i'e a%ay to anot$er ele'en 611 plastic ba&s o( suspected mari3uana (ruitin& tops %ei&$in& 7,8*1: &rams in 'iolation o( t$e abo'e-cited la% CON/;A;< /O =A># +. /$e pro sec uti on contends t$e o(( ense %as commit ted as (ol lo%s0 ?n No'ember 1995 , member s o( t$e Nor t$ etropoli tan District, 2$i lippine National 2ol ice 62N2 Nar cot ics Command 6Narcom, recei'ed in(ormation (rom t%o 6+ ci'ilian in(ormants 6C? t$at one #@un# %as en&a&ed in ille&al dru& acti'ities in andaluyon& City /$e Narcom a&ents decided to entrap and arrest #@un# in a buy-bust operation As arran&ed by one o( t$e C? s, a meetin&  bet%een t$e Narcom a&ents and #@un# %as sc$eduled on December 5 , 1995 at E @acinto )treet in andaluyon& City On December 5, 1995, at 80 in t$e mornin&, t$e C? %ent to t$e 2N2 4eaduarters at ED)A, amunin&, ueon City to prepare (or t$e buy-bust operation /$e Narcom a&ents (or med /e am Al p$a compos ed o( 2? nsp Nol asco Cor tes as team leade r and 2O Cel so anlan&it, )2O1 Edmund Badua and (our 6* ot$er policemen as members 2?nsp Cortes desi& nated 2O anlan&it as t$e poseur -buy er and )2O1 Badua as $is bacG-up, and t$e rest o( t$e team as perimeter security )uperintendent 2edro Alcantara, C$ie( o( t$e Nort$ etropolitan District 2N2 Narcom, &a'e t$e team 2+, to co'er operational eHpenses From t$is sum, 2O anlan&it set aside 21,8-- a one t$ousand peso bill and siH 68 one $undred peso

Transcript of P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 1/28


[G.R. No. 125299. January 22, 1999]



%NENETH,% accused-appellants.


P&NO, J .'

On December 7, 1995, accused-appellants Florencio Doria y Bolado and ioleta !addao yCatama " #Nenet$# %ere c$ar&ed %it$ 'iolation o( )ection *, in relation to )ection +1 o( t$e

Dan&erous Dru&s Act o( 197+1. /$e in(ormation reads0

#/$at on or about t$e 5t$ day o( December, 1995 in t$e City o( andaluyon&,

2$ilippines, a place %it$in t$e 3urisdiction o( t$is 4onorable Court, t$e abo'e-named

accused, conspirin&, con(ederatin& and mutually $elpin& and aidin& one anot$er and

%it$out $a'in& been aut$oried by la%, did, t$en and t$ere %ill(ully, unla%(ully and

(eloniously sell, administer, deli'er and &i'e a%ay to anot$er ele'en 611 plastic ba&s

o( suspected mari3uana (ruitin& tops %ei&$in& 7,8*1: &rams in 'iolation o( t$e

abo'e-cited la%

CON/;A;< /O =A>#+.

/$e prosecution contends t$e o((ense %as committed as (ollo%s0 ?n No'ember 1995,

members o( t$e Nort$ etropolitan District, 2$ilippine National 2olice 62N2 Narcotics

Command 6Narcom, recei'ed in(ormation (rom t%o 6+ ci'ilian in(ormants 6C? t$at one #@un#%as en&a&ed in ille&al dru& acti'ities in andaluyon& City /$e Narcom a&ents decided to

entrap and arrest #@un# in a buy-bust operation As arran&ed by one o( t$e C?s, a meetin&

 bet%een t$e Narcom a&ents and #@un# %as sc$eduled on December 5, 1995 at E @acinto )treet inandaluyon& City

On December 5, 1995, at 80 in t$e mornin&, t$e C? %ent to t$e 2N2 4eaduarters atED)A, amunin&, ueon City to prepare (or t$e buy-bust operation /$e Narcom a&ents(ormed /eam Alp$a composed o( 2?nsp Nolasco Cortes as team leader and 2O Celso

anlan&it, )2O1 Edmund Badua and (our 6* ot$er policemen as members 2?nsp Cortes

desi&nated 2O anlan&it as t$e poseur-buyer and )2O1 Badua as $is bacG-up, and t$e rest o( 

t$e team as perimeter security )uperintendent 2edro Alcantara, C$ie( o( t$e Nort$ etropolitanDistrict 2N2 Narcom, &a'e t$e team 2+, to co'er operational eHpenses From t$is sum,

2O anlan&it set aside 21,8-- a one t$ousand peso bill and siH 68 one $undred peso

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 2/28

 bills.-- as money (or t$e buy-bust operation /$e marGet price o( one Gilo o( mari3uana %as

t$en21,8 2O anlan&it marGed t$e bills %it$ $is initials and listed t$eir serial numbers in

t$e police blotter*. /$e team rode in t%o cars and $eaded (or t$e tar&et area

At 70+ o( t$e same mornin&, #@un# appeared and t$e C? introduced 2O anlan&it as

interested in buyin& one 61 Gilo o( mari3uana 2O anlan&it $anded #@un# t$e marGed bills

%ort$ 21,8 #@un# instructed 2O anlan&it to %ait (or $im at t$e corner o( )$a%Boule'ard and @acinto )treet %$ile $e &ot t$e mari3uana (rom $is associate5. An $our later, #@un#

appeared at t$e a&reed place %$ere 2O anlan&it, t$e C? and t$e rest o( t$e team %ere %aitin&

#@un# tooG out (rom $is ba& an ob3ect %rapped in plastic and &a'e it to 2O anlan&it 2O

anlan&it (ort$%it$ arrested #@un# as )2O1 Badua rus$ed to $elp in t$e arrest /$ey (risGed#@un# but did not (ind t$e marGed bills on $im Ipon inuiry, #@un# re'ealed t$at $e le(t t$e

money at t$e $ouse o( $is associate named #Nenet$# 8. #@un# led t$e police team to #Nenet$s#

$ouse nearby at Daan& BaGal

/$e team (ound t$e door o( #Nenet$s# $ouse open and a %oman inside #@un# identi(ied t$e

%oman as $is associate7. )2O1 Badua asGed #Nenet$# about t$e 21,8 as 2O anlan&it

looGed o'er #Nenet$s# $ouse )tandin& by t$e door, 2O anlan&it noticed a carton boH under t$e dinin& table 4e sa% t$at one o( t$e boHs (laps %as open and inside t$e boH %as somet$in&

%rapped in plastic /$e plastic %rapper and its contents appeared similar to t$e mari3uana earlier 

#sold# to $im by #@un# 4is suspicion aroused, 2O anlan&it entered #Nenet$s# $ouse and tooG 

$old o( t$e boH 4e peeGed inside t$e boH and (ound t$at it contained ten 61 bricGs o( %$atappeared to be dried mari3uana lea'es

)imultaneous %it$ t$e boHs disco'ery, )2O1 Badua reco'ered t$e marGed bills (rom

#Nenet$#:. /$e policemen arrested #Nenet$# /$ey tooG #Nenet$# and #@un,# to&et$er %it$ t$e boH, its contents and t$e marGed bills and turned t$em o'er to t$e in'esti&ator at $eaduarters ?t

%as only t$en t$at t$e police learned t$at #@un# is Florencio Doria y Bolado %$ile #Nenet$# is

ioleta !addao y Catama /$e one 61 bricG o( dried mari3uana lea'es reco'ered (rom #@un# plus

t$e ten 61 bricGs reco'ered (rom #Nenet$s# $ouse %ere eHamined at t$e 2N2 Crime=aboratory9. /$e bricGs, ele'en 611 in all, %ere (ound to be dried mari3uana (ruitin& tops o( 

'arious %ei&$ts totallin& 7,8*1: &rams1.

/$e prosecution story %as denied by accused-appellants Florencio Doria and ioleta!addao Florencio Doria, a -year old carpenter, testi(ied t$at on December 5, 1995, at 70 in

t$e mornin&, $e %as at t$e &ate o( $is $ouse readin& a tabloid ne%spaper /%o men appeared and

asGed $im i( $e Gne% a certain #/otoy# /$ere %ere many #/otoys# in t$eir area and as t$e menuestionin& $im %ere stran&ers, accused-appellant denied Gno%in& any #/otoy# /$e men tooG 

accused-appellant inside $is $ouse and accused $im o( bein& a pus$er in t$eir community>$en

accused-appellant denied t$e c$ar&e, t$e men led $im to t$eir car outside and ordered $im to

 point out t$e $ouse o( #/otoy# For (i'e 65 minutes, accused-appellant stayed in t$ecar /$erea(ter, $e &a'e in and tooG t$em to #/otoys# $ouse

Doria GnocGed on t$e door o( #/otoys# $ouse but no one ans%ered One o( t$e men, later 

identi(ied as 2O anlan&it, pus$ed open t$e door and $e and $is companions entered andlooGed around t$e $ouse (or about t$ree minutes Accused-appellant Doria %as le(t standin& at

t$e door /$e policemen came out o( t$e $ouse and t$ey sa% ioleta !addao carryin& %ater (rom

t$e %ell 4e asGed ioleta %$ere #/otoy# %as but s$e replied $e %as not t$ere CuriousonlooGers and Gibiters %ere, by t$at time, surroundin& t$em >$en ioleta entered $er $ouse,

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 3/28

t$ree men %ere already inside Accused-appellant Doria, t$en still at t$e door, o'er$eard one o( 

t$e men say t$at t$ey (ound a carton boH /urnin& to%ards t$em, Doria sa% a boH on top o( t$e

table /$e boH %as open and $ad somet$in& inside 2O anlan&it ordered $im and ioleta to&o outside t$e $ouse and board t$e car /$ey %ere brou&$t to police $eaduarters %$ere t$ey

%ere in'esti&ated

Accused-appellant Doria (urt$er declared t$at $is co-accused, ioleta !addao, is t$e %i(e o( $is acuaintance, /otoy !addao 4e said t$at $e and /otoy !addao sometimes dranG to&et$er at

t$e nei&$bor$ood store /$is closeness, $o%e'er, did not eHtend to ioleta, /otoys %i(e11.

Accused-appellant ioleta !addao, a 5-year old rice 'endor, claimed t$at on December 5,

1995, s$e %as at $er $ouse at Daan& BaGal, andaluyon& City %$ere s$e li'ed %it$ $er $usbandand (i'e 65 c$ildren, namely, Ar'y, a&ed 1, Ar3ay, a&ed :, t$e t%ins ;aymond and ;aynan,

a&ed 5, and @ason, a&ed /$at day, accused-appellant %oGe up at 50 in t$e mornin& and

 bou&$t pan de sal (or $er c$ildrens breaG(ast 4er $usband, /otoy, a $ousepainter, $ad le(t (or 2an&asinan (i'e days earlier )$e %oGe $er c$ildren and bat$ed t$em 4er eldest son, Ar'y, le(t

(or sc$ool at 80*5 A /en minutes later, s$e carried $er youn&est son, @ayson, and

accompanied Ar3ay to sc$ool )$e le(t t$e t%ins at $ome lea'in& t$e door open A(ter seein&Ar3ay o((, s$e and @ayson remained standin& in (ront o( t$e sc$ool soaGin& in t$e sun (or about

t$irty minutes /$en t$ey $eaded (or $ome Alon& t$e %ay, t$ey passed t$e artesian %ell to (etc$

%ater )$e %as pumpin& %ater %$en a man clad in s$ort pants and denim 3acGet suddenly

appeared and &rabbed $er le(t %rist /$e man pulled $er and tooG $er to $er $ouse )$e (ound outlater t$at t$e man %as 2O anlan&it

?nside $er $ouse %ere $er co-accused Doria and t$ree 6 ot$er persons /$ey asGed $er 

about a boH on top o( t$e table /$is %as t$e (irst time s$e sa% t$e boH /$e boH %as closed andtied %it$ a piece o( &reen stra% /$e men opened t$e boH and s$o%ed $er its contents )$e said

s$e did not Gno% anyt$in& about t$e boH and its contents

Accused-appellant ioleta !addao con(irmed t$at $er co-accused Florencio Doria %as a(riend o( $er $usband, and t$at $er $usband ne'er returned to t$eir $ouse a(ter $e le(t (or 2an&asinan )$e denied t$e c$ar&e a&ainst $er and Doria and t$e alle&ation t$at marGed bills

%ere (ound in $er person1+.

A(ter trial, t$e ;e&ional /rial Court, Branc$ 158, 2asi& City con'icted t$e accused-appellants /$e trial court (ound t$e eHistence o( an #or&aniedsyndicated crime &roup# and

sentenced bot$ accused-appellants to deat$ and pay a (ine o( 25, eac$ /$e dispositi'e

 portion o( t$e decision reads as (ollo%s0

#>4E;EFO;E, t$e &uilt o( accused, F=O;ENC?O DO;?A y BO=ADO " #@un#

and ?O=E/A !ADDAO y CA/AA " #Nenet$# $a'in& been establis$ed beyond

reasonable doubt, t$ey are bot$ CON?C/ED o( t$e present c$ar&e a&ainst t$em

Accordin& to t$e amendatory pro'isions o( )ec 1 o( ;epublic Act No 7859 %$ic$

co'er 'iolations o( )ec * o( ;epublic Act No 8*+5 and %$ic$ %as eH$austi'ely

discussed in 2eople ' )imon, +* )C;A 555, t$e penalty imposable in t$is case is

reclusion perpetua to deat$ and a (ine ran&in& (rom (i'e $undred t$ousand pesos to ten

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 4/28

million pesos /aGin& into consideration, $o%e'er, t$e pro'isions o( )ec +, also o(

;epublic Act No 7859 %$ic$ eHplicitly state t$at0

/$e maHimum penalty s$all be imposed i( t$e o((ense %as committed by any person

%$o belon&s to an or&aniedsyndicated crime &roup

An or&aniedsyndicated crime &roup means a &roup o( t%o or more persons

collaboratin&, con(ederatin& or mutually $elpin& one anot$er (or purposes o( &ain in

t$e commission o( any crime

t$e Court is $ereby constrained to sentence 6$ereby sentences said F=O;ENC?O

DO;?A y BO=ADO " #@un# and ?O=E/A !ADDAO y CA/AA " #Nenet$# to

DEA/4 and to pay a (ine o( Fi'e 4undred /$ousand 2esos 625, eac$

%it$out subsidiary imprisonment in case o( insol'ency and to pay t$e costs

/$e con(iscated mari3uana bricGs 67,8*1: &rams s$all be turned o'er to t$eDan&erous Dru&s Board, NB? (or destruction in accordance %it$ la%

=et a Commitment Order be issued (or t$e trans(er o( accused DO;?A (rom t$e

andaluyon& City @ail to t$e Ne% Bilibid 2risons, untinlupa City and also (or

accused !ADDAO (or $er trans(er to t$e Correctional ?nstitute (or >omen,

andaluyon& City

=et t$e entire records o( t$is case be (or%arded immediately to t$e )upreme Court (or

mandatory re'ie%

)O O;DE;ED#1.

Be(ore t$is Court, accused-appellant Doria assi&ns t%o errors, t$us0


/4E COI;/ A IO !;AE=< E;;ED ?N !??N! >E?!4/ /O /4E

/E)/?ON< OF /4E >?/NE))E) FO; /4E 2;O)ECI/?ON >4EN /4E?;

/E)/?ON?E) >E;E )4O/ >?/4 D?)C;E2ANC?E), ?NCON)?)/ENC?E)

AND /4A/ /4E CO;2I) DE=?C/? OF /4E A;?@IANA A==E!ED=<

/AEN F;O A22E==AN/ >A) NO/ 2O)?/?E=< ?DEN/?F?ED B< /4E2O)EI;-BI<E;


/4E COI;/ A IO !;AE=< E;;ED ?N AD?//?N! A) E?DENCE /4E

A;?@IANA F;I?/?N!) FOIND ?N)?DE /4E CA;/ON BOJ A) /4E)E

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 5/28

>E;E OB/A?NED /4;OI!4 A >A;;AN/=E)) )EA;C4 AND DOE) NO/

COE >?/4?N /4E 2=A?N ?E> DOC/;?NE#1*.

Accused-appellant ioleta !addao contends0


/4E =O>E; COI;/ E;;ED ?N F?ND?N! A22E==AN/ !I?=/< DE)2?/E

/4E ?NC;ED?B?=?/< OF /4E 2O=?CE E;)?ON OF /4E ANNE; /4E



/4E 2N2 OFF?CE;) E;)?ON) A) /O >4E;E /4E BI<-BI)/ ONE<

CAE F;O A;E ?NCON)?)/EN/ >?/4 ONE ANO/4E; AND A=)O ;EE)

>?/4 ?NC;ED?B?=?/<


/4E =O>E; COI;/ E;;ED ?N F?ND?N! A22E==AN/ !I?=/< AND

)EN/ENC?N! 4E; /O DEA/4 DE)2?/E /4E AN?FE)/=<

?;;ECONC?=AB=E ?NCON)?)/ENC?E) ?N /4E E;)?ON) OF /4E 2O=?CE

A) /O 4O> AND B< >4O /4E A==E!ED BI<-BI)/ ONE< >A)

;ECOE;ED F;O 4E;, >4?C4 ?N CON)EIENCE ;E)I=/) ?N /4E

E?DENCE, OF ;E/;?EA= F;O 4E; OF /4E )AE, NEBI=OI), A/

BE)/, N?=, A/ >O;)/


/4E =O>E; COI;/ E;;ED ?N I24O=D?N! /4E A=?D?/< OF /4E

>A;;AN/=E)) )EA;C4 =EAD?N! /O /4E )E?KI;E OF /4E A;?@IANA

A==E!ED=< FOIND ?N)?DE /4E 4OI)E OF ACCI)ED-A22E==AN/#15.

/$e assi&ned errors in'ol'e t%o principal issues0 61 t$e 'alidity o( t$e buy-bust operation in

t$e appre$ension o( accused-appellant DoriaL and 6+ t$e 'alidity o( t$e %arrantless arrest o( 

accused-appellant !addao, t$e searc$ o( $er person and $ouse, and t$e admissibility o( t$e pieces

o( e'idence obtained t$ere(rom

Accused-appellants %ere cau&$t by t$e police in a buy-bust operation A buy-bust operationis a (orm o( entrapment employed by peace o((icers as an e((ecti'e %ay o( appre$endin& a

criminal in t$e act o( t$e commission o( an o((ense 18. Entrapment $as recei'ed 3udicial sanction%$en undertaGen %it$ due re&ard to constitutional and le&al sa(e&uards17.

Entrapment %as unGno%n in common la% ?t is a 3udicially created t%entiet$-century

American doctrine t$at e'ol'ed (rom t$e increasin& use o( in(ormers and underco'er a&ents in

t$e detection o( crimes, particularly liuor and narcotics o((enses 1:. Entrapment sprouted (rom

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 6/28

t$e doctrine o( estoppel and t$e public interest in t$e (ormulation and application o( decent

standards in t$e en(orcement o( criminal la%19. ?t also tooG o(( (rom a spontaneous moral

re'ulsion a&ainst usin& t$e po%ers o( &o'ernment to be&uile innocent but ductile persons intolapses t$at t$ey mi&$t ot$er%ise resist+.

?n t$e American 3urisdiction, t$e term #entrapment# $as a &enerally ne&ati'e meanin&

 because it is understood as t$e inducement o( one to commit a crime not contemplated by $im,(or t$e mere purpose o( institutin& a criminal prosecution a&ainst $im+1. /$e classic de(inition o( 

entrapment is t$at articulated by @ustice ;oberts in Sorrells v. United States,++. t$e (irst )upreme

Court decision to acGno%led&e t$e concept0 #Entrapment is t$e conception and plannin& o( an

o((ense by an o((icer, and $is procurement o( its commission by one %$o %ould not $a'e

 perpetrated it eHcept (or t$e tricGery, persuasion or (raud o( t$e o((icer #+. ?t consists o( t%o 6+

elements0 6a acts o( persuasion, tricGery, or (raud carried out by la% en(orcement o((icers or t$e

a&ents to induce a de(endant to commit a crimeL and 6b t$e ori&in o( t$e criminal desi&n in t$eminds o( t$e &o'ernment o((icials rat$er t$an t$at o( t$e innocent de(endant, suc$ t$at t$e crime

is t$e product o( t$e creati'e acti'ity o( t$e la% en(orcement o((icer+*.

?t is reco&nied t$at in e'ery arrest, t$ere is a certain amount o( entrapment used to out%itt$e persons 'iolatin& or about to 'iolate t$e la% Not e'ery deception is (orbidden /$e type o( 

entrapment t$e la% (orbids is t$e inducin& o( anot$er to 'iolate t$e la%, t$e #seduction# o( an

ot$er%ise innocent person into a criminal career+5. >$ere t$e criminal intent ori&inates in t$emind o( t$e entrappin& person and t$e accused is lured into t$e commission o( t$e o((ense

c$ar&ed in order to prosecute $im, t$ere is entrapment and no con'iction may be $ad +8. >$ere,

$o%e'er, t$e criminal intent ori&inates in t$e mind o( t$e accused and t$e criminal o((ense is

completed, t$e (act t$at a person actin& as a decoy (or t$e state, or public o((icials (urnis$ed t$eaccused an opportunity (or commission o( t$e o((ense, or t$at t$e accused is aided in t$e

commission o( t$e crime in order to secure t$e e'idence necessary to prosecute $im, t$ere is no

entrapment and t$e accused must be con'icted+7. /$e la% tolerates t$e use o( decoys and ot$er 

arti(ices to catc$ a criminalEntrapment is reco&nied as a 'alid de(ense+:. t$at can be raised by an accused and partaGes

o( t$e nature o( a con(ession and a'oidance+9. ?t is a positi'e de(ense ?nitially, an accused $ast$e burden o( pro'idin& su((icient e'idence t$at t$e &o'ernment induced $im to commit t$e

o((ense Once establis$ed, t$e burden s$i(ts to t$e &o'ernment to s$o% ot$er%ise . >$en

entrapment is raised as a de(ense, American (ederal courts and a ma3ority o( state courts use t$e

#sub3ecti'e# or #ori&in o( intent# test laid do%n in Sorrells v. United States1. to determine%$et$er entrapment actually occurred /$e (ocus o( t$e inuiry is on t$e accuseds predisposition

to commit t$e o((ense c$ar&ed, $is state o( mind and inclination be(ore $is initial eHposure to

&o'ernment a&ents+. All rele'ant (acts suc$ as t$e accuseds mental and c$aracter traits, $is pasto((enses, acti'ities, $is ea&erness in committin& t$e crime, $is reputation, etc, are considered to

assess $is state o( mind be(ore t$e crime. /$e predisposition test emp$asies t$e accuseds propensity to commit t$e o((ense rat$er t$an t$e o((icers misconduct*. and re(lects an attempt todra% a line bet%een a #trap (or t$e un%ary innocent and t$e trap (or t$e un%ary criminal# 5. ?( 

t$e accused %as (ound to $a'e been ready and %illin& to commit t$e o((ense at any (a'orable

opportunity, t$e entrapment de(ense %ill (ail e'en i( a police a&ent used an unduly persuasi'e

inducement8. )ome states, $o%e'er, $a'e adopted t$e #ob3ecti'e# test 7. /$is test %as (irstaut$oritati'ely laid do%n in t$e case o( Grossman v. State:. rendered by t$e )upreme Court o( 

AlasGa )e'eral ot$er states $a'e subseuently adopted t$e test by 3udicial pronouncement or 

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 7/28

le&islation 4ere, t$e court considers t$e nature o( t$e police acti'ity in'ol'ed and t$e propriety

o( police conduct9. /$e inuiry is (ocused on t$e inducements used by &o'ernment a&ents, on

 police conduct, not on t$e accused and $is predisposition to commit t$e crime For t$e &oal o( 

t$e de(ense is to deter unla%(ul police conduct*. /$e test o( entrapment is %$et$er t$e conduct

o( t$e la% en(orcement a&ent %as liGely to induce a normally la%-abidin& person, ot$er t$an one

%$o is ready and %illin&, to commit t$e o((enseL*1.

 (or purposes o( t$is test, it is presumed t$at ala%-abidin& person %ould normally resist t$e temptation to commit a crime t$at is presented by

t$e simple opportunity to act unla%(ully*+. O((icial conduct t$at merely o((ers suc$ an

opportunity is permissible, but o'erbearin& conduct, suc$ as bad&erin&, ca3olin& or importunin&,*. or appeals to sentiments suc$ as pity, sympat$y, (riends$ip or pleas o( desperate illness, are

not**. 2roponents o( t$is test belie'e t$at courts must re(use to con'ict an entrapped accused not

 because $is conduct (alls outside t$e le&al norm but rat$er because, e'en i( $is &uilt $as beenestablis$ed, t$e met$ods employed on be$al( o( t$e &o'ernment to brin& about t$e crime #cannot

 be countenanced# /o some eHtent, t$is re(lects t$e notion t$at t$e courts s$ould not become

tainted by condonin& la% en(orcement improprieties *5. 4ence, t$e transactions leadin& up to t$e

o((ense, t$e interaction bet%een t$e accused and la% en(orcement o((icer and t$e accuseds

response to t$e o((icers inducements, t$e &ra'ity o( t$e crime, and t$e di((iculty o( detectin&instances o( its commission are considered in 3ud&in& %$at t$e e((ect o( t$e o((icers conduct

%ould be on a normal person*8.

Bot$ t$e #sub3ecti'e# and #ob3ecti'e# approac$es $a'e been criticied and ob3ected to ?t is

claimed t$at t$e #sub3ecti'e# test creates an #anyt$in& &oes# rule, ie, i( t$e court determines t$at

an accused %as predisposed to commit t$e crime c$ar&ed, no le'el o( police deceit, bad&erin& or 

ot$er unsa'ory practices %ill be deemed impermissible *7. Del'in& into t$e accuseds c$aracter and predisposition obscures t$e more important tasG o( 3ud&in& police be$a'ior and pre3udices

t$e accused more &enerally ?t i&nores t$e possibility t$at no matter %$at $is past crimes and

&eneral disposition %ere, t$e accused mi&$t not $a'e committed t$e particular crime unlesscon(ronted %it$ inordinate inducements*:. On t$e ot$er eHtreme, t$e purely #ob3ecti'e# test

eliminates entirely t$e need (or considerin& a particular accuseds predisposition4is predisposition, at least i( Gno%n by t$e police, may $a'e an important bearin& upon t$e uestion

o( %$et$er t$e conduct o( t$e police and t$eir a&ents %as proper *9. /$e undisputed (act t$at t$e

accused %as a dan&erous and c$ronic o((ender or t$at $e %as a s$re%d and acti'e member o( a

criminal syndicate at t$e time o( $is arrest is rele&ated to irrele'ancy5.

Ob3ections to t$e t%o tests &a'e birt$ to $ybrid approac$es to entrapment )ome states in t$e

Inited )tates no% combine bot$ t$e #sub3ecti'e# and #ob3ecti'e# tests51. ?n Cruz v. State,5+. t$e

Florida )upreme Court declared t$at t$e permissibility o( police conduct must (irst be

determined ?( t$is ob3ecti'e test is satis(ied, t$en t$e analysis turns to %$et$er t$e accused %as predisposed to commit t$e crime 5. ?n Baca v. State,5*. t$e Ne% eHico )upreme Court modi(ied

t$e states entrapment analysis by $oldin& t$at #a criminal de(endant may success(ully assert ade(ense o( entrapment, eit$er by s$o%in& lacG o( predisposition to commit t$e crime (or %$ic$$e is c$ar&ed, or, t$at t$e police eHceeded t$e standards o( proper in'esti&ation 55. /$e $ybrid

approac$es combine and apply t$e #ob3ecti'e# and #sub3ecti'e# tests alternati'ely or 


As early as 191, t$is Court $as eHamined t$e conduct o( la% en(orcers %$ile appre$endin&

t$e accused cau&$t in flagrante delicto ?n United States v. Phelps,58. %e acuitted t$e accused

(rom t$e o((ense o( smoGin& opium a(ter (indin& t$at t$e &o'ernment employee, a B?; 

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 8/28

 personnel, actually induced $im to commit t$e crime in order to prosecute $im )mit$, t$e B?; 

a&ent, testi(ied t$at 2$elps appre$ension came a(ter $e o'er$eard 2$elps in a saloon say t$at $e

liGed smoGin& opium on some occasions )mit$s testimony %as disre&arded >e accordedsi&ni(icance to t$e (act t$at it %as )mit$ %$o %ent to t$e accused t$ree times to con'ince $im to

looG (or an opium den %$ere bot$ o( t$em could smoGe t$is dru& 57. /$e conduct o( t$e B?; 

a&ent %as condemned as #most repre$ensible#5:.

 ?n People v. Abella,59.

 %e acuitted t$e accusedo( t$e crime o( sellin& eHplosi'es a(ter eHaminin& t$e testimony o( t$e appre$endin& police

o((icer %$o pretended to be a merc$ant /$e police o((icer o((ered #a temptin& price, HHH a 'ery

$i&$ one# causin& t$e accused to sell t$e eHplosi'es >e (ound t$at t$ere %as inducement,#direct, persistent and e((ecti'e# by t$e police o((icer and t$at outside o( $is testimony, t$ere %as

no e'idence su((icient to con'ict t$e accused 8. ?n People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se ieng ,81. %e

con'icted t$e accused a(ter (indin& t$at t$ere %as no inducement on t$e part o( t$e la%

en(orcement o((icer >e stated t$at t$e Customs secret ser'iceman smoot$ed t$e %ay (or t$eintroduction o( opium (rom 4on&Gon& to Cebu a(ter t$e accused $ad already planned its

importation and ordered said dru& >e ruled t$at t$e appre$endin& o((icer did not induce t$e

accused to import opium but merely entrapped $im by pretendin& to $a'e an understandin& %it$

t$e Collector o( Customs o( Cebu to better assure t$e seiure o( t$e pro$ibited dru& and t$e arresto( t$e surreptitious importers8+.

?t %as also in t$e same case o( People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se ieng 8. %e (irst laid do%n t$edistinction bet%een entrapment 'is-a-'is insti&ation or inducement uotin& 18 Corpus @uris,8*. %e $eld0

#EN/;A2EN/ AND ?N)/?!A/?ON -- >$ile it $as been said t$at t$e practice o(

entrappin& persons into crime (or t$e purpose o( institutin& criminal prosecutions is to

 be deplored, and %$ile insti&ation, as distin&uis$ed (rom mere entrapment, $as o(ten

 been condemned and $as sometimes been $eld to pre'ent t$e act (rom bein& criminal

or punis$able, t$e &eneral rule is t$at it is no de(ense to t$e perpetrator o( a crime t$at(acilities (or its commission %ere purposely placed in $is %ay, or t$at t$e criminal act

%as done at t$e decoy solicitation o( persons seeGin& to eHpose t$e criminal, or t$at

detecti'es (ei&nin& complicity in t$e act %ere present and apparently assistin& in its

commission Especially is t$is true in t$at class o( cases %$ere t$e o((ense is one o( a

Gind $abitually committed, and t$e solicitation merely (urnis$es e'idence o( a course

o( conduct ere deception by t$e detecti'e %ill not s$ield de(endant, i( t$e o((ense

%as committed by $im, (ree (rom t$e in(luence or insti&ation o( t$e detecti'e /$e (act

t$at an a&ent o( an o%ner acts as a supposed con(ederate o( a t$ie( is no de(ense to t$e

latter in a prosecution (or larceny, pro'ided t$e ori&inal desi&n %as (ormed

independently o( suc$ a&entL and %$ere a person approac$ed by t$e t$ie( as $iscon(ederate noti(ies t$e o%ner or t$e public aut$orities, and, bein& aut$orised by t$em

to do so, assists t$e t$ie( in carryin& out t$e plan, t$e larceny is ne'ert$eless

committed ?t is &enerally $eld t$at it is no de(ense to a prosecution (or an ille&al sale

o( liuor t$at t$e purc$ase %as made by a spotter, detecti'e, or $ired in(ormerL but

t$ere are cases $oldin& t$e contrary#85.

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 9/28

/$e distinction abo'e-uoted %as reiterated in t%o 6+ decisions o( t$e Court o( Appeals

?n People v. Galicia,88. t$e appellate court declared t$at #t$ere is a %ide di((erence bet%een

entrapment and insti&ation# /$e insti&ator practically induces t$e %ould-be accused into t$ecommission o( t$e o((ense and $imsel( becomes a co-principal ?n entrapment, %ays and means

are resorted to by t$e peace o((icer (or t$e purpose o( trappin& and capturin& t$e la%breaGer in

t$e eHecution o( $is criminal plan87.

 ?n People v. an iong ,8:.

 t$e Court o( Appeals (urt$er declared t$at #entrapment is no bar to t$e prosecution and con'iction o( t$e la%breaGer# 89.

/$e pronouncement o( t$e Court o( Appeals in People v. Galicia %as a((irmed by t$is Court

in People v. iu Ua.7. Entrapment, %e (urt$er $eld, is not contrary to public policy ?t is

insti&ation t$at is deemed contrary to public policy and ille&al71.

?t can t$us be seen t$at t$e concept o( entrapment in t$e American 3urisdiction is similar to

insti&ation or inducement in 2$ilippine 3urisprudence Entrapment in t$e 2$ilippines is not a

de(ense a'ailable to t$e accused ?t is insti&ation t$at is a de(ense and is considered an absolutorycause7+. /o determine %$et$er t$ere is entrapment or insti&ation, our courts $a'e mainly

eHamined t$e conduct o( t$e appre$endin& o((icers, not t$e predisposition o( t$e accused to

commit t$e crime /$e #ob3ecti'e# test (irst applied in United States v. Phelps $as been (ollo%edin a series o( similar cases 7.  Ne'ert$eless, adoptin& t$e #ob3ecti'e# approac$ $as not precluded

us (rom liGe%ise applyin& t$e #sub3ecti'e# test ?n People v. Boholst ,7*. %e applied bot$ tests by

eHaminin& t$e conduct o( t$e police o((icers in a buy-bust operation andadmittin& e'idence o( 

t$e accuseds members$ip %it$ t$e notorious and dreaded )i&ue-)i&ue )putniG !an& >e alsoconsidered accuseds pre'ious con'ictions o( ot$er crimes75. and $eld t$at $is opprobrious past

and members$ip %it$ t$e dreaded &an& stren&t$ened t$e states e'idence a&ainst

$im Con'ersely, t$e e'idence t$at t$e accused did not sell or smoGe mari3uana and did not $a'eany criminal record %as liGe%ise admitted in People v. !utuc78. t$ereby sustainin& $is de(ense

t$at led to $is acuittal

/$e distinction bet%een entrapment and insti&ation $as pro'en to be 'ery material in anti-

narcotics operations ?n recent years, it $as become common practice (or la% en(orcemento((icers and a&ents to en&a&e in buy-bust operations and ot$er entrapment procedures in

appre$endin& dru& o((enders Anti-narcotics la%s, liGe anti-&amblin& la%s are re&ulatory

statutes77. /$ey are rules o( con'enience desi&ned to secure a more orderly re&ulation o( t$ea((airs o( society, and t$eir 'iolation &i'es rise to crimes mala prohibita7:. /$ey are not t$e

traditional type o( criminal la% suc$ as t$e la% o( murder, rape, t$e(t, arson, etc t$at deal %it$

crimes mala in se or t$ose in$erently %ron&(ul and immoral79. =a%s de(inin& crimes mala prohibita condemn be$a'ior directed, not a&ainst particular indi'iduals, but a&ainst public order

:. iolation is deemed a %ron& a&ainst society as a %$ole and is &enerally unattended %it$ any

 particular $arm to a de(inite person:1. /$ese o((enses are carried on in secret and t$e 'iolatorsresort to many de'ices and subter(u&es to a'oid detection ?t is rare (or any member o( t$e

 public, no matter $o% (uriously $e condemns acts mala prohibita" to be %illin& to assist in t$een(orcement o( t$e la% ?t is necessary, t$ere(ore, t$at &o'ernment in detectin& and punis$in&

'iolations o( t$ese la%s, rely, not upon t$e 'oluntary action o( a&&rie'ed indi'iduals, but upont$e dili&ence o( its o%n o((icials /$is means t$at t$e police must be present at t$e time t$e

o((enses are committed eit$er in an underco'er capacity or t$rou&$ in(ormants, spies or stool


7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 10/28

/$ou&$ considered essential by t$e police in en(orcin& 'ice le&islation, t$e con(idential

in(ormant system breeds abominable abuse Freuently, a person %$o accepts payment (rom t$e

 police in t$e appre$ension o( dru& peddlers and &amblers also accept payment (rom t$ese persons %$o decei'e t$e police /$e in(ormant $imsel( may be a dru& addict, picGpocGet, pimp,

or ot$er petty criminal For %$ate'er noble purpose it ser'es, t$e spectacle t$at &o'ernment is

secretly mated %it$ t$e under%orld and uses under%orld c$aracters to $elp maintain la% andorder is not an inspirin& one:. Eually odious is t$e bitter reality o( dealin& %it$ unscrupulous,

corrupt and eHploitati'e la% en(orcers =iGe t$e in(ormant, unscrupulous la% en(orcers

moti'ations are le&ion-- $arassment, eHtortion, 'en&eance, blacGmail, or a desire to report anaccomplis$ment to t$eir superiors /$is Court $as taGen 3udicial notice o( t$is u&ly reality in a

number o( cases:*. %$ere %e obser'ed t$at it is a common modus operandi o( corrupt la%

en(orcers to prey on %eaG and $apless persons, particularly unsuspectin& pro'incial $icGs :5. /$e

use o( s$ady under%orld c$aracters as in(ormants, t$e relati'e ease %it$ %$ic$ ille&al dru&s may be planted in t$e $ands or property o( trustin& and i&norant persons, and t$e imposed secrecy t$at

ine'itably s$rouds all dru& deals $a'e compelled t$is Court to be eHtra-'i&ilant in decidin& dru&

cases:8. Criminal acti'ity is suc$ t$at stealt$ and strate&y, alt$ou&$ necessary %eapons in t$e

arsenal o( t$e police o((icer, become as ob3ectionable police met$ods as t$e coerced con(essionand t$e unla%(ul searc$ As %ell put by t$e )upreme Court o( Cali(ornia in People v. Barraza,:7.

#E.ntrapment is a (acet o( a broader problem Alon& %it$ ille&al searc$ and seiures,

%iretappin&, (alse arrest, ille&al detention and t$e t$ird de&ree, it is a type o( la%less

en(orcement /$ey all sprin& (rom common moti'ations Eac$ is a substitute (or

sGill(ul and scienti(ic in'esti&ation Eac$ is condoned by t$e sinister sop$ism t$at t$e

end, %$en dealin& %it$ Gno%n criminals o( t$e criminal classes, 3usti(ies t$e

employment o( ille&al means#::.

?t is t$us imperati'e t$at t$e presumption, #uris tantum, o( re&ularity in t$e per(ormance o( 

o((icial duty by la% en(orcement a&ents raised by t$e )olicitor !eneral be applied %it$ studiedrestraint /$is presumption s$ould not by itsel( pre'ail o'er t$e presumption o( innocence andt$e constitutionally-protected ri&$ts o( t$e indi'idual :9. ?t is t$e duty o( courts to preser'e t$e

 purity o( t$eir o%n temple (rom t$e prostitution o( t$e criminal la% t$rou&$ la%less en(orcement9. Courts s$ould not allo% t$emsel'es to be used as an instrument o( abuse and in3ustice lest an

innocent person be made to su((er t$e unusually se'ere penalties (or dru& o((enses 91.

>e t$ere(ore stress t$at t$e #ob3ecti'e# test in buy-bust operations demands t$at t$e details

o( t$e purported transaction must be clearly and adeuately s$o%n /$is must start (rom t$e

initial contact bet%een t$e poseur-buyer and t$e pus$er, t$e o((er to purc$ase, t$e promise or  payment o( t$e consideration until t$e consummation o( t$e sale by t$e deli'ery o( t$e ille&al

dru& sub3ect o( t$e sale9+.

 /$e manner by %$ic$ t$e initial contact %as made, %$et$er or nott$rou&$ an in(ormant, t$e o((er to purc$ase t$e dru&, t$e payment o( t$e #buy-bust# money, and

t$e deli'ery o( t$e ille&al dru&, %$et$er to t$e in(ormant alone or t$e police o((icer, must be t$esub3ect o( strict scrutiny by courts to insure t$at la%-abidin& citiens are not unla%(ully induced

to commit an o((ense Criminals must be cau&$t but not at all cost At t$e same time, $o%e'er,

eHaminin& t$e conduct o( t$e police s$ould not disable courts into i&norin& t$e accuseds predisposition to commit t$e crime ?( t$ere is o'er%$elmin& e'idence o( $abitual delinuency,

recidi'ism or plain criminal procli'ity, t$en t$is must also be considered Courts s$ould looG at

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 11/28

all (actors to determine t$e predisposition o( an accused to commit an o((ense in so (ar as t$ey

are rele'ant to determine t$e 'alidity o( t$e de(ense o( inducement

?n t$e case at bar, t$e e'idence s$o%s t$at it %as t$e con(idential in(ormant %$o initiallycontacted accused-appellant Doria At t$e pre-arran&ed meetin&, t$e in(ormant %as accompanied

 by 2O anlan&it %$o posed as t$e buyer o( mari3uana 2O anlan&it $anded t$e marGed

money to accused-appellant Doria as ad'ance payment (or one 61 Gilo o( mari3uana Accused-appellant Doria %as appre$ended %$en $e later returned and $anded t$e bricG o( mari3uana to

2O anlan&it

2O anlan&it testi(ied in a (ranG, spontaneous, strai&$(or%ard and cate&orical manner and

$is credibility %as not crumpled on cross-eHamination by de(ense counsel oreo'er, 2Oanlan&its testimony %as corroborated on its material points by )2O1 Badua, $is bacG-up

security /$e non-presentation o( t$e con(idential in(ormant is not (atal to t$e prosecution

?n(ormants are usually not presented in court because o( t$e need to $ide t$eir identity and preser'e t$eir in'aluable ser'ice to t$e police9. ?t is %ell-settled t$at eHcept %$en t$e appellant

'e$emently denies sellin& pro$ibited dru&s and t$ere are material inconsistencies in t$e

testimonies o( t$e arrestin& o((icers,9*.

 or t$ere are reasons to belie'e t$at t$e arrestin& o((icers$ad moti'es to testi(y (alsely a&ainst t$e appellant,95. or t$at only t$e in(ormant %as t$e poseur-

 buyer %$o actually %itnessed t$e entire transaction,98. t$e testimony o( t$e in(ormant may be

dispensed %it$ as it %ill merely be corroborati'e o( t$e appre$endin& o((icers eye%itness

testimonies97. /$ere is no need to present t$e in(ormant in court %$ere t$e sale %as actually%itnessed and adeuately pro'ed by prosecution %itnesses9:.

/$e inconsistencies in 2O anlan&its and )2O1 Baduas testimonies and t$e ot$er police

o((icers testimonies are minor and do not detract (rom t$e 'eracity and %ei&$t o( t$e prosecutione'idence /$e source o( t$e money (or t$e buy-bust operation is not a critical (act in t$e case at

 bar ?t is enou&$ t$at t$e prosecution pro'ed t$at money %as paid to accused-appellant Doria in

consideration o( %$ic$ $e sold and deli'ered t$e mari3uana

Contrary to accused-appellant Dorias claim, t$e one Gilo o( mari3uana #sold# by $im to 2Oanlan&it %as actually identi(ied by 2O anlan&it $imsel( be(ore t$e trial court A(ter 

appellants appre$ension, t$e Narcom a&ents placed t$is one 61 bricG o( mari3uana reco'ered

(rom appellant Doria inside t$e carton boH lumpin& it to&et$er %it$ t$e ten 61 bricGs inside/$is is %$y t$e carton boH contained ele'en 611 bricGs o( mari3uana %$en brou&$t be(ore t$e

trial court /$e one 61 bricG reco'ered (rom appellant Doria and eac$ o( t$e ten 61 bricGs,

$o%e'er, %ere identi(ied and marGed in court /$us0

#A//< A;?A), Counsel (or Florencio Doria0

r 2olice O((icer, %$en you identi(ied t$at boH, /ell t$e court, $o% %ere you able to identi(y

t$at boHM

A T()* )* +( -o +(a+ I -rou/(+ +o +( 0r) a-ora+ory 3()0( 0on+a)n! +( 4n )0* o6 

ar)7uana -r)08 3 0on6)*0a+! 6ro +( *u*0+, *)r

2lease open it and s$o% t$ose ele'en bricGs

2;O)ECI/O; >itness brin&in& out (rom t$e said boH

A//< A=DEK, Counsel (or ioleta !addao0

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 12/28

<our 4onor, ? must protest t$e line o( uestionin& considerin& t$e (act t$at %e are no% dealin&

%it$ ele'en items %$en t$e uestion posed to t$e %itness %as %$at %as $anded to $im by @unM

COI;/ )o be it

A//< A;?A) ay %e maGe it o( record t$at t$e %itness is pullin& out item a(ter item (rom t$e boH

s$o%ed to $im and brou&$t in (ront o( $im

COI;/ Noted

No3 + +( 0our+, (o3 !)! you 8no3 +(a+ +(o* ar +( 4n -r)08*:


A I (a4 ar8)n/* on +(* 4n -r)08*, *)r.

2oint to t$e court, %$ere are t$ose marGin&sM

A 4ere, sir, my si&nature, my initials %it$ t$e date, sir

2;O)ECI/O; >itness s$o%ed a %$ite %rapper and pointin& to C= and t$e si&nature

>$ose si&nature is t$atM

A//< A=DEK <our 4onor, may %e 3ust limit t$e inuiry to t$e basic uestion o( t$e (iscal as to

%$at %as $anded to $im by t$e accused @un, your 4onorM

2;O)ECI/O; <our 4onor, t$ere is already a rulin& by t$is 4onorable Court, your 4onor, despite


COI;/ =et t$e prosecution do its o%n t$in& and lea'e t$e appreciation o( %$at it $as done to t$e


A//< A=DEK >e submit, your 4onor

A T()* -r)08 )* +( on +(a+ 3a* (an!! +o -y +( *u*0+ Jun, *)r.

CO&RT ;(y !o you 8no3 +(a+ +(a+ )* +( +()n/: Ar you *ur +(a+ )* no+ %+)8oy:%

A <*, your Honor.

;(a+ a8* you *o *ur:

A I a *ur +(a+ +()* )* +( on, your Honor. T()* )* +( E()-)+ %A% 3()0( I ar8! -6or I

-rou/(+ )+ +o +( PCCL, your Honor.

;(a+ ar you *ur o6:

A I a *ur +(a+ +()* )* +( -r)08 +(a+ 3a* /)4n +o -y on a)a* Jun, *)r.

;(a+ a8* you *o *ur:

A 0au* I ar8! )+ 3)+( y o3n )n)+)a* -6or /)4)n/ )+ +o +( )n4*+)/a+or an! -6or 3-rou/(+ )+ +o +( PCCL, your Honor.


PROSEC&TOR #ay 3 r=u*+ +(a+ a +a/ - a0! on +()* 3()+ a*+)0 -a/ an! +()* -

ar8! a* E()-)+ %D:%

CO&RT #ar8 )+ a* E()-)+ %D.%

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 13/28

/o stress, %$o made t$e entries o( t$is date, EH$ibit #A# t$en t$e ot$er letters and (i&ures on t$is


A /$is one, t$e si&nature, ? made t$e si&nature, t$e date and t$e time and t$is EH$ibit #A#

4o% about t$is oneM

A ? dont Gno% %$o made t$is marGin&, sir

2;O)ECI/O; ay it be o( record t$at t$is %as 3ust entered t$is mornin&

? am asGin& you about t$is #itim# and not t$e #asul#

A /$is C=, t$e date and t$e time and t$e EH$ibit #A,# ? %as t$e one %$o made t$ese marGin&s, sir

2;O)ECI/O; ay %e place on record t$at t$e one t$at %as enclosed

A//< A;?A) <our 4onor, t$ere are also entries included in t$at enclosure %$ere it appears D-9*-

95, also EH$ibit #A,# etc etc, t$at %as not pointed to by t$e %itness ? %ant to maGe it o( record

t$at t$ere are ot$er entries included in t$e enclosure

COI;/ Noted /$e court sa% it

No3, an! +()* a/! -r)08 o6 ar)7uana 3)+( a )0 o6 ar, 3)+( a n3*ar 3ra)n/

3)+( a )0 o6 ar )n*)! 3()0( ra!*' %D>?9@>95, E()-)+ A, 9B /ra* SSL% - ar8!

a* our E()-)+ %D>2:%

CO&RT Ta/ )+. #ar8 )+.

T()* ar+)0uar ()-)+ +(a+ you )!n+)6)!, +( 3rar an! +( 0on+n+* 3a* /)4n +o you -y


A I+ 3a* /)4n +o -y *u*0+ Jun, *)r.


A A+ +( 0ornr o6 ou4ar! an! Ja0)n+o S+., *)r.

Ho3 a-ou+ +( o+(r )+* +(a+ you 3r a- +o r0o4r:


A T(* o+(r ar)7uana -r)08*, -0au* !ur)n/ our 6oo3>u, -0au* a00or!)n/ +o Jun +(

ony 3()0( I /a4 () 3a* )n +( (an!* o6 Nn+( an! *o 3 ro0!! +o +( (ou* o6 

Nn+(, *)r.


/$e (irst bricG identi(ied by 2 anlan&it %as t$e bricG o( mari3uana #&i'en to $im. by suspect@un# at t$e corner o( Boule'ard and @acinto )treets /$is bricG, includin& t$e ne%spaper and

%$ite plastic %rappin& %ere marGed as EH$ibits #D,# #D-1,# and #D-+# and described as%ei&$in& nine $undred se'enty 697 &rams1.

>e also re3ect appellants submission t$at t$e (act t$at 2O anlan&it and $is team %aited

(or almost one $our (or appellant Doria to &i'e t$em t$e one Gilo o( mari3uana a(ter $e

#paid# 21,8 strains credulity Appellant cannot capitalie on t$e circumstance t$at t$emoney and t$e mari3uana in t$e case at bar did not c$an&e $ands under t$e usual #Gali%aan#

system /$ere is no rule o( la% %$ic$ reuires t$at in #buy-bust# operations t$ere must be a

simultaneous eHc$an&e o( t$e marGed money and t$e pro$ibited dru& bet%een t$e poseur-buyer 

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 14/28

and t$e pus$er 11. A&ain, t$e decisi'e (act is t$at t$e poseur-buyer recei'ed t$e mari3uana (rom

t$e accused-appellant1+.

>e also $old t$at t$e %arrantless arrest o( accused-appellant Doria is not unla%(ul>arrantless arrests are allo%ed in t$ree instances as pro'ided by )ection 5 o( ;ule 11 o( t$e

19:5 ;ules on Criminal 2rocedure, to %it0

#Sec. $. Arrest %ithout %arrant& %hen la%ful  -- A peace o((icer or a pri'ate person

may, %it$out a %arrant, arrest a person0

a ;(n, )n ()* r*n0, +( r*on +o - arr*+! (a* 0o)++!, )* a0+uay 0o)++)n/,

or )* a+++)n/ +o 0o)+ an o66n*

- ;(n an o66n* (a* )n 6a0+ 7u*+ -n 0o)++!, an! ( (a* r*ona 8no3!/ o6 

6a0+* )n!)0a+)n/ +(a+ +( r*on +o - arr*+! (a* 0o)++! )+ an!

6c >$en t$e person to be arrested is a prisoner %$o escaped (rom a penal establis$ment or 

 place %$ere $e is ser'in& (inal 3ud&ment or temporarily con(ined %$ile $is case is pendin&, or $as

escaped %$ile bein& trans(erred (rom one con(inement to anot$er

H H H#1.

Inder )ection 5 6a, as abo'e-uoted, a person may be arrested %it$out a %arrant i( $e #$as

committed, is actually committin&, or is attemptin& to commit an o((ense# Appellant Doria %as

cau&$t in t$e act o( committin& an o((ense >$en an accused is appre$ended in (la&rante delictoas a result o( a buy-bust operation, t$e police are not only aut$oried but duty-bound to arrest

$im e'en %it$out a %arrant1*.

/$e %arrantless arrest o( appellant !addao, t$e searc$ o( $er person and residence, and t$e

seiure o( t$e boH o( mari3uana and marGed bills are di((erent matters

Our Constitution proscribes searc$ and seiure %it$out a 3udicial %arrant and any e'idenceobtained %it$out suc$ %arrant is inadmissible (or any purpose in any proceedin& 15. /$e rule is,

$o%e'er, not absolute )earc$ and seiure may be made %it$out a %arrant and t$e e'idenceobtained t$ere(rom may be admissible in t$e (ollo%in& instances0 18. 61 searc$ incident to a

la%(ul arrestL17. 6+ searc$ o( a mo'in& motor 'e$icleL 1:. 6 searc$ in 'iolation o( customs la%sL19. 6* seiure o( e'idence in plain 'ie%L11. 65 %$en t$e accused $imsel( %ai'es $is ri&$t a&ainst

unreasonable searc$es and seiures111.

/$e prosecution admits t$at appellant !addao %as arrested %it$out a %arrant o( arrest and

t$e searc$ and seiure o( t$e boH o( mari3uana and t$e marGed bills %ere liGe%ise made %it$out

a searc$ %arrant ?t is claimed, $o%e'er, t$at t$e %arrants %ere not necessary because t$e arrest%as made in #$ot pursuit# and t$e searc$ %as an incident to $er la%(ul arrest

/o be la%(ul, t$e %arrantless arrest o( appellant !addao must (all under any o( t$e t$ree 6

instances enumerated in )ection 5 o( ;ule 11 o( t$e 19:5 ;ules on Criminal 2rocedure as

a(oreuoted /$e direct testimony o( 2O anlan&it, t$e arrestin& o((icer, $o%e'er s$o%sot$er%ise0

#A//< A=DEK, Counsel (or appellant !addao0

>e submit at t$is 3uncture, your 4onor, t$at t$ere %ill be no basis (or t$at uestion

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 15/28

/$is particular eH$ibit t$at you identi(ied, t$e %rapper and t$e contents %as &i'en to you by %$omM

A ?t %as &i'en to me by suspect @un, sir


A At t$e corner o( Boule'ard and @acinto )treet, sir

4o% about t$e ot$er items t$at you %ere able to reco'erM

A//< A=DEK0 >e submit at t$is 3uncture, your 4onor, t$at t$ere %ill be no basis (or t$at uestion

COI;/ /$ere is Ans%er

A /$ese ot$er mari3uana bricGs, -0au* !ur)n/ our 6oo3>u, -0au* a00or!)n/ +o Jun +(

ony 3()0( I /a4 () 3a* )n +( (an!* o6 Nn+( an! *o 3 ro0!! +o +( (ou* o6 

Nn+(, *)r.


A A+ Daan/ a8a nar +( 0r) *0n a+ S(a3 ou4ar!, *)r.

An! 3(a+ (an! uon arr)4a +(ra+:

A ; *a3 a)a* Nn+( )n*)! +( (ou* an! 3 a*8! () +o /)4 u* +( -uy>-u*+ ony, *)r.

<ou mentioned #$imM#

A Hr, *)r. ; a*8! (r +o /)4 u* +( ony, +( ar8! ony 3()0( Jun /a4 (r, *)r.

And %$at $appenedM

A At t$is instance, it %as )2O1 Badua %$o can testi(y re&ardin& t$is buy-bust money, sir

H H H#11+.

)2O1 Badua testi(ied on cross-eHamination t$at0

;(a+ 3a* your )n+n+)on )n /o)n/ +o +( (ou* o6 A)n/ Nn+(:

A To arr*+ (r, *)r.

u+ +( 6a0+ )*, #r. ;)+n**, 3(n you ra0(! +( (ou* o6 A)n/ Nn+(, A)n/ Nn+( 3a*


A <*, *)r.

A* 6ar a* you 0an *, *( 3a* 7u*+ )n*)! (r (ou*:

A I *a3 (r ou+*)!, *)r.

S( 3a* 6+0()n/ 3a+r a* a a++r o6 6a0+:

A S( 3a* *a -an!an/ o*o.

Carry)n/ a -a-y:

A No, *)r.

A+ +(a+ ar+)0uar +) 3(n you ra0(! +( (ou* o6 A)n/ Nn+( an! *a3 (r ou+*)! +(

(ou*, *( 3a* no+ 0o)++)n/ any 0r), *( 3a* 7u*+ ou+*)! +( (ou*:

A No, *)r.

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 16/28

S( 3a* no+ a-ou+ +o 0o)+ any 0r) -0au* *( 3a* 7u*+ ou+*)! +( (ou* !o)n/ (r !a)y

0(or*. A I 0orr0+:

A I 7u*+ *a3 (r ou+*)!, *)r.

An! a+ +(a+ o)n+ )n +) you ara!y 3an+! +o arr*+ (r. T(a+ )* 0orr0+, )* )+ no+:

A <*, *)r.

No%, i( any memory o( your testimony is correct, accordin& to you )2O1 anlan&it approac$ed


A 2O anlan&it, sir

<ou did not approac$ $er because 2O anlan&it approac$ed $erM

A <es, sir

Durin& all t$e time t$at t$is con(rontation, arrest or %$ate'er by )2O anlan&it %as taGin& place,

you %ere 3ust in t$e side linesM

A ? %as 3ust %atc$in&, sir

)o you %ere 3ust an on-looGer to %$at anlan&it %as doin&, because precisely accordin& to you

your role in t$is buy-bust operation %as as a bacG-upM

A <es, sir

>$o &ot t$e alle&ed mari3uana (rom inside t$e $ouse o( rs Nenet$M

A 2O anlan&it, sir

anlan&it &ot t$e mari3uanaM

A <es, sir

And t$e money (rom Alin& Nenet$M

A ? dont Gno%, sir

<ou did not e'en Gno% %$o &ot t$e money (rom Alin& Nenet$M


/$ere is no basis (or t$is uestion, your 4onor oney, t$eres no testimony on t$at

A//< A=DEK0

? %as asGin& $im precisely


 No basisCOI;/0


Alri&$t ? %ill asG you a uestion and ? eHpect an $onest ans%er Accordin& to t$e records, t$e

amount o( 21,8 %as reco'ered (rom t$e person o( Alin& Nenet$ /$ats ri&$tM

A <es, sir, t$e buy-bust money

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 17/28

>$at you are no% sayin& (or certain and (or t$e record is t$e (act t$at you %ere not t$e one %$o

retrie'ed t$e money (rom Alin& Nenet$, it %as anlan&it maybeM

A ? sa% it, sir

?t %as anlan&it %$o &ot t$e money (rom Alin& Nenet$M

A /$e buy-bust money %as reco'ered (rom t$e $ouse o( Alin& Nenet$, sir

?t %as taGen (rom t$e $ouse o( Alin& Nenet$, not (rom t$e person o( Alin& Nenet$ ?s t$at %$at you

are tryin& to tell t$e CourtM

A No, sir

A//< A=DEK0 ? am t$rou&$ %it$ t$is %itness, your 4onor# 11.

Accused-appellant !addao %as not cau&$t red-$anded durin& t$e buy-bust operation to &i'e

&round (or $er arrest under )ection 5 6a o( ;ule 11 )$e %as not committin& any crimeContrary to t$e (indin& o( t$e trial court, t$ere %as no occasion at all (or appellant !addao to (lee

(rom t$e policemen to 3usti(y $er arrest in #$ot pursuit# 11*. ?n (act, s$e %as &oin& about $er daily

c$ores %$en t$e policemen pounced on $er

 Neit$er could t$e arrest o( appellant !addao be 3usti(ied under t$e second instance o( ;ule

11 #2ersonal Gno%led&e# o( (acts in arrests %it$out %arrant under )ection 5 6b o( ;ule 11

must be based upon #probable cause# %$ic$ means an #actual belie( or reasonable &rounds o( 

suspicion#115. /$e &rounds o( suspicion are reasonable %$en, in t$e absence o( actual belie( o( t$e arrestin& o((icers, t$e suspicion t$at t$e person to be arrested is probably &uilty o( 

committin& t$e o((ense, is based on actual (acts, ie, supported by circumstances su((iciently

stron& in t$emsel'es to create t$e probable cause o( &uilt o( t$e person to be arrested 118. Areasonable suspicion t$ere(ore must be (ounded on probable cause, coupled %it$ &ood (ait$ on

t$e part o( t$e peace o((icers maGin& t$e arrest117.

Accused-appellant !addao %as arrested solely on t$e basis o( t$e alle&ed identi(ication

made by $er co-accused 2O anlan&it, $o%e'er, declared in $is direct eHamination t$atappellant Doria named $is co-accused in response to $is 62O anlan&its uery as to %$ere t$e

marGed ony %as11:. Appellant Doria did not point to appellant !addao as $is associate in t$e

dru& business, but as t$e person %it$ %$om $e le(t t$e marGed bills /$is identi(ication does notnecessarily lead to t$e conclusion t$at appellant !addao conspired %it$ $er co-accused in

 pus$in& dru&s Appellant Doria may $a'e le(t t$e money in $er $ouse,119. %it$ or %it$out $er 

Gno%led&e, %it$ or %it$out any conspiracy )a'e (or accused-appellant Dorias %ord, t$e Narcom a&ents $ad no reasonable &rounds to belie'e t$at s$e %as en&a&ed in dru& pus$in& ?( 

t$ere is no s$o%in& t$at t$e person %$o e((ected t$e %arrantless arrest $ad, in $is o%n ri&$t,

Gno%led&e o( (acts implicatin& t$e person arrested to t$e perpetration o( a criminal o((ense, t$e

arrest is le&ally ob3ectionable


)ince t$e %arrantless arrest o( accused-appellant !addao %as ille&al, it (ollo%s t$at t$e

searc$ o( $er person and $ome and t$e subseuent seiure o( t$e marGed bills and mari3uana

cannot be deemed le&al as an incident to $er arrest /$is brin&s us to t$e uestion o( %$et$er t$etrial court correctly (ound t$at t$e boH o( mari3uana %as in plain 'ie%, maGin& its %arrantless

seiure 'alid

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 18/28

Ob3ects (allin& in plain 'ie% o( an o((icer %$o $as a ri&$t to be in t$e position to $a'e t$at

'ie% are sub3ect to seiure e'en %it$out a searc$ %arrant and may be introduced in e'idence1+1. /$e #plain 'ie%# doctrine applies %$en t$e (ollo%in& reuisites concur0 6a t$e la%en(orcement o((icer in searc$ o( t$e e'idence $as a prior 3usti(ication (or an intrusion or is in a

 position (rom %$ic$ $e can 'ie% a particular areaL 6b t$e disco'ery o( t$e e'idence in plain 'ie%

is inad'ertentL 6c it is immediately apparent to t$e o((icer t$at t$e item $e obser'es may bee'idence o( a crime, contraband or ot$er%ise sub3ect to seiure 1++. /$e la% en(orcement o((icer 

must la%(ully maGe an initial intrusion or properly be in a position (rom %$ic$ $e can

 particularly 'ie% t$e area 1+. ?n t$e course o( suc$ la%(ul intrusion, $e came inad'ertently acrossa piece o( e'idence incriminatin& t$e accused1+*. /$e ob3ect must be open to eye and $and 1+5. and

its disco'ery inad'ertent1+8.

?t is clear t$at an ob3ect is in plain 'ie% i( t$e ob3ect itsel( is plainly eHposed to si&$t /$e

di((iculty arises %$en t$e ob3ect is inside a closed container >$ere t$e ob3ect seied %as inside aclosed pacGa&e, t$e ob3ect itsel( is not in plain 'ie% and t$ere(ore cannot be seied %it$out a

%arrant 4o%e'er, i( t$e pacGa&e proclaims its contents, %$et$er by its distincti'e con(i&uration,

its transparency, or i( its contents are ob'ious to an obser'er, t$en t$e contents are in plain 'ie%

and may be seied1+7. ?n ot$er %ords, i( t$e pacGa&e is suc$ t$at an eHperienced obser'er couldin(er (rom its appearance t$at it contains t$e pro$ibited article, t$en t$e article is deemed in plain

'ie%1+:. ?t must be immediately apparent to t$e police t$at t$e items t$at t$ey obser'e may bee'idence o( a crime, contraband or ot$er%ise sub3ect to seiure1+9.

2O anlan&it, t$e Narcom a&ent %$o (ound t$e boH, testi(ied on cross-eHamination as


#A//< A=DEK0

)o $ere %e are >$en you and Badua arri'ed, Alin& Nenet$ %as inside t$e $ouseM

A <es, sir

Badua demanded (rom Alin& Nenet$ t$e buy-bust moneyM

A <es, sir

A+ +(a+ ar+)0uar )n*+an0, you *a3 +( 0ar+on:

A <*, *)r.

T()* 0ar+on, a00or!)n/ +o you 3a* un!r a +a-:

A <*, *)r, !)n)n/ +a-.

I no+)0! +(a+ +()* 0ar+on (a* a 0o4r:

A <*, *)r.

I a*8 you 3r +( 6a* o6 +( 0o4r ra)*! or 0o*!:

A I+ 3a* on, *)r. No+ )8 +(a+.


!o do%n t$ere )$o% to t$e court


7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 19/28

>itness %ent do%n t$e %itness stand and approac$ed a carton boH

A =iGe t$is, sir


Can %e describe itM

A//< A=DEK



On 6a )* )n*)! an! +( o+(r 6a )* *+an!)n/ an! 3)+( +( 0on+n+* 4)*)-.



A+ +()* 7un0+ur, you 3n+ )n*)! +( (ou*:

A <*, *)r.

An! /o+ (o! o6 +()* 0ar+on:

A <*, *)r.

D)! you n+)on any+()n/ +o A)n/ Nn+(:

A I a*8! (r, 3(a+* +()*...

No, no no did you mention anyt$in& to Alin& Nenet$ be(ore &ettin& t$e cartonM

A ? t$inG it %as Badua %$o accosted Alin& Nenet$ re&ardin& t$e buy-bust money and $e asGed #)a iyo

&alin& an& mari3uanan& ito, nasaan an& buy-bust money naminM# sir

aGin& re(erence to t$e mari3uana t$at %as &i'en by alias @unM

A <es, sir

>$en you proceeded to taGe $old o( t$is carton, Alin& Nenet$ %as not yet (risGed, is it not  sic.M

A ? 3ust dont Gno% i( s$e %as (risGed already by Badua, sir

>$o &ot $old o( t$isM

A ? %as t$e one, sir

<ou %ere t$e one %$o &ot t$isM

A <es, sir

At t$at particular point in time, you did not Gno% i( t$e alle&ed buy-bust money %as alreadyretrie'ed by BaduaM

A <es, sir

<ou %ent inside t$e $ouseM

A <es, sir

<ou did not $a'e any searc$ %arrantM

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 20/28

A <es, sir

?n (act, t$ere %as not$in& yet as (ar as you %ere concerned to 'alidate t$e (act t$at rs !adao %as

in possession o( t$e buy-bust money because accordin& to you, you did not Gno% %$et$er Badua

already retrie'ed t$e buy-bust money (rom $erM

A <es, sir

4o% (ar %as t$is (rom t$e doorM

A /%o and a $al( meters (rom t$e door, sir ?t %as in plain 'ie%

Inder t$e table accordin& to youM

A <es, sir, dinin& table

)ome%$ere $ereM

A ?ts (ar, sir


ay %e reuest t$e %itness to place it, %$ere $e sa% itM

A 4ere, sir

;(a+ you * )* a 0ar+on:

A <*, *)r, 3)+( a*+)0.

#ar8! %Sno3 T) I0 Po:%

A <*, *)r.

;)+( a )0 o6 a*+)0 4)*)- on +o o6 +( 0ar+on:

A <*, *)r.

T(a+ )* a +(a+ you *a3:

A <*, *)r.


For t$e record, your 4onor

<ou %ere only able to 'eri(y accordin& to you


2anero, %ait Because ? am ob3ectin& to t$e %ords a piece o( plastic By readin& it

A//< A=DEK

/$ats a piece o( plastic


By readin& it, it %ill connote t$is is not a piece o( plastic

A//< A=DEK

>$at is t$atM >$at can you say, FiscalM ?m asGin& youM

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 21/28


>it$ due respect, %$at ? am sayin& is, lets place t$e sie o( t$e plastic A piece o( plastic may be

 bi& or a small one, (or record purposes


=ea'e t$at to t$e court


=ea'e t$at to t$e court

T( ony ra*on a00or!)n/ +o you, you 3r a- +o... Loo8 a+ +()*, no 4n Suran... I

3)+(!ra3 +(a+. No+ 4n a an 3)+( 4ry 8)n [sic] y* 0an + +( 0on+n+* (r. An!

a00or!)n/ +o +( Cour+, )+ 0ou! - %+)8oy,% )* )+ no+ [sic]:

A <*, *)r.


A <*, *)r.

Cann! /oo!*:

A <*, *)r.

I+ 0ou! - )0 0ra -0au* )+ *ay* Sno3 Po, I0 Po:

A I r*u! )+ 3a* a*o ar)7uana -0au* )+ ay ...

I a no+ a*8)n/ you 3(a+ your r*u+)on* ar. I a*8)n/ you 3(a+ )+ 0ou! o**)-y -.

A I+* +( *a a*+)0, *)r.

A//< A=DEK

?m not e'en asGin& you t$at uestion so %$y are you 'oluntarily sayin& t$e in(ormation =et t$e prosecutor do t$at (or you


Continue NeHt uestion

H H H#1.

2O anlan&it and t$e police team %ere at appellant !addaos $ouse because t$ey %ere led

t$ere by appellant Doria /$e Narcom a&ents testi(ied t$at t$ey $ad no in(ormation on appellant

!addao until appellant Doria named $er and led t$em to $er 11. )tandin& by t$e door o( appellant

!addaos $ouse, 2O anlan&it $ad a 'ie% o( t$e interior o( said $ouse /%o and a $al( metersa%ay %as t$e dinin& table and underneat$ it %as a carton boH /$e boH %as partially open and

re'ealed somet$in& %rapped in plastic

?n $is direct eHamination, 2O anlan&it said t$at $e %as sure t$at t$e contents o( t$e boH%ere mari3uana because $e $imsel( c$ecGed and marGed t$e said contents1+. On cross-

eHamination, $o%e'er, $e admitted t$at $e merely r*u! t$e contents to be mari3uana

 because it $ad t$e same plastic %rappin& as t$e #buy-bust mari3uana# A close scrutiny o( t$erecords re'eals t$at t$e plastic %rapper %as not colorless and transparent as to clearly mani(est

its contents to a 'ie%er Ea0( o6 +( +n 1B -r)08* o6 ar)7uana )n +( -o 3a* )n!)4)!uay

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 22/28

3ra! )n o! n3*ar an! a0! )n*)! a*+)0 -a/*>> 3()+, )n8 or -u )n 0oor.1. PO? #anan/)+ ()*6 a!)++! on 0ro**>a)na+)on +(a+ +( 0on+n+* o6 +( -o

0ou! - )+* o+(r +(an ar)7uana. H !)! no+ 8no3 a0+y 3(a+ +( -o 0on+a)n! +(a+

( (a! +o a*8 aan+ Ga!!ao a-ou+ )+* 0on+n+*.1*. I+ 3a* no+ )!)a+y aarn+ +o

PO? #anan/)+ +(a+ +( 0on+n+ o6 +( -o 3a* ar)7uana. /$e mari3uana %as not in plain

'ie% and its seiure %it$out t$e reuisite searc$ %arrant %as in 'iolation o( t$e la% and t$eConstitution15. ?t %as (ruit o( t$e poisonous tree and s$ould $a'e been eHcluded and ne'er 

considered by t$e trial court18.

/$e (act t$at t$e boH containin& about siH 68 Gilos o( mari3uana17. %as (ound in t$e $ouse o( 

accused-appellant !addao does not 3usti(y a (indin& t$at *(  $ersel( is &uilty o( t$e crimec$ar&ed1:. Apropos is our rulin& in People v. Aminnudin,19. 'i0

#/$e Court stron&ly supports t$e campai&n o( t$e &o'ernment a&ainst dru& addiction

and commends t$e e((orts o( our la% en(orcement o((icers a&ainst t$ose %$o %ould

in(lict t$is malediction upon our people, especially t$e susceptible yout$ But as

demandin& as t$is campai&n may be, it cannot be more so t$an t$e compulsions o( t$eBill o( ;i&$ts (or t$e protection o( t$e liberty o( e'ery indi'idual in t$e realm,

includin& t$e basest o( criminals /$e Constitution co'ers %it$ t$e mantle o( its

 protection t$e innocent and t$e &uilty aliGe a&ainst any manner o( $i&$-$andedness

(rom t$e aut$orities, $o%e'er praise%ort$y t$eir intentions

/$ose %$o are supposed to en(orce t$e la% are not 3usti(ied in disre&ardin& t$e ri&$t

o( t$e indi'idual in t$e name o( order Order is too $i&$ a price (or t$e loss o(

liberty As @ustice 4olmes, a&ain, said, ? t$inG it a less e'il t$at some criminals s$ould

escape t$an t$at t$e &o'ernment s$ould play an i&noble part ?t is simply not allo%ed

in t$e (ree society to 'iolate a la% to en(orce anot$er, especially i( t$e la% 'iolated ist$e Constitution itsel(#1*.

)ection * o( ;epublic Act No 8*+5, t$e Dan&erous Dru&s Act o( 197+, as amended by)ection 1 o( ;epublic Act No 7859 punis$es t$e #sale, administration, deli'ery, distribution

and transportation o( a pro$ibited dru&# %it$ t$e penalty o( reclusion perpetua to deat$ and a

(ine ran&in& (rom 25, to 21 million, to %it0

#Sec. '. Sale" Administration" (elivery" (istribution and ransportation of Prohibited

 (rugs-- /$e penalty o( reclusion perpetua to deat$, and a (ine ran&in& (rom (i'e

$undred t$ousand pesos to ten million pesos s$all be imposed upon any person %$o,

unless aut$oried by la%, s$all sell, administer, deli'er, &i'e a%ay to anot$er,distribute, dispatc$ in transit or transport any pro$ibited dru&, or s$all act as a broGer

in any o( suc$ transactions

H H H#

?n e'ery prosecution (or ille&al sale o( dan&erous dru&s, %$at is material is t$e submission o(  proo( t$at t$e sale tooG place bet%een t$e poseur-buyer and t$e seller t$ereo( and t$e

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 23/28

 presentation o( t$e dru&, ie, t$e corpus delicti, as e'idence in court1*1. /$e prosecution $as

clearly establis$ed t$e (act t$at in consideration o( 21,8 %$ic$ $e recei'ed, accused-

appellant Doria sold and deli'ered nine $undred se'enty 697 &rams o( mari3uana to 2Oanlan&it, t$e poseur-buyer /$e prosecution, $o%e'er, $as (ailed to pro'e t$at accused-

appellant !addao conspired %it$ accused-appellant Doria in t$e sale o( said dru& /$ere bein&

no miti&atin& or a&&ra'atin& circumstances, t$e lo%er penalty o( reclusion perpetua must beimposed1*+.

IN "IE; ;HEREOF, t$e decision o( t$e ;e&ional /rial Court, Branc$ 158, 2asi& City

actin& as a )pecial Court in Criminal Case No 7-D is re'ersed and modi(ied as (ollo%s0

1 Accused-appellant Florencio Doria y Bolado is sentenced to su((er t$e penalty o( reclusion

 perpetua and to pay a (ine o( (i'e $undred t$ousand pesos 625,

+ Accused-appellant ioleta !addao y Catama is acuitted


 (avide" )r." C.)." *omero" Bellosillo" +elo" ,itug" -apunan" +endoza" +artinez"

uisumbing" Purisima" Pardo" Buena" and Gonzaga/*eyes" ))." concur . Panganiban " )." please see concurrin& opinion

1. ;epublic Act No 8*+5, as amended by ;A 7859

+.  *ollo, pp 8-7

. EH$ibits #A-1# to #A-*,# #B-1# to #B-#

*. EH$ibits #C-1# and #C-+#


 /)N o( February 8, 1998, p 18. /)N o( February 8, 1998, pp 11-1+

7. /)N o( February 8, 1998, p 1:

:. /)N o( arc$ 1+, 1998, p 1:

9. EH$ibit #),# ;euest (or =aboratory EHamination

1. EH$ibits #,# and #;L# /)N o( arc$ 5, 1998, pp +-11

11. /)N o( ay :, 1998, pp +-:

1+. /)N o( April 1, 1998, pp *-17

1. Decision o( t$e trial court, pp 1-1*, *ollo, pp -1

1*. Brie( (or Accused-Appellant Florencio Doria, pp :, 1*, *ollo, pp 5+, 5:

15. Brie( (or Accused-Appellant ioleta !addao, p 9, *ollo, p 1+8

18. 2eople v Basil&o, +5 )C;A 191 199*.L 2eople v <ap, ++9 )C;A 7:7 199*.L 2eople v acasa, ++9 )C;A

*++ 199*.

17. 2eople v 4errera, +*7 )C;A * 1995.L 2eople ' /adepa, +** )C;A 9 1995.L 2eople v Basil&o, supra

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 24/28

1:. +1 Am @ur +d, #Criminal =a%,# )ec + 19:1 ed.L see also )tate ' Campbell, 11 N4 +:, +85 A+d 11, 1

197.-- sale o( narcoticsL Annotation in 8+ A=; d 11, )ec +a.

19. +1 Am @ur +d, #Criminal =a%,# )ec +* 19:1 ed.L see also Inited )tates eH rel 4all ' ?llinois 6CA7 ?ll +9

F+d 5*, 5:-59 cert den 79 I) :91, 1 = Ed +d 9*, :5 ) Ct 18* 198*.-- unla%(ul sale and possession o( narcotic dru&s


  0d L see also )tate v Campbell, supra, at 1L Inited )tates v BecGer 6CA+ N< 8+ F+d 17, 19 19.--sendin& obscene matter in interstate commerce

+1. +1 Am @ur +d, #Criminal =a%,# )ec ++ 19:1 ed.

++. +:7 I) *5, 5 ) Ct +1, 77 = Ed *1 19+. /$is case in'ol'ed t$e sale o( liuor in 'iolation o( t$e2ro$ibition Act /$e ma3ority decision %as penned by C$ie( @ustice 4u&$es @ustice ;oberts %rote a concurrin&


+. at +:7 I) *5*, 77 = Ed *+L also cited in 2eople v Bernal 6*t$ Dist *5 2 +d 1*,1*, 17* Cal App +d 777

1959.L 2eople v Outten, 1*7 NE +d +:*,+:5, 1 ?ll +d +1 195:.L )%i(t v Common%ealt$, 1 )E +d 9, 1+, 199 a*+ 1957.L see also +1 Am @ur +d, #Criminal =a%,# )ec ++

+*. +1 Am @ur +d, supra, at )ec ++


 2eople v Outten, supra, at +:8+8. )orrells v Inited )tates, +:7 I) *5, **+, *51-*5+ 19+.

+7. 4oy v )tate, 5 Ari **, 9 2+d 8+, 8+:-8+9 199.--briberyL see +1 Am @ur +d, supra, )ec ++

+:. >oo >ai v Inited )tates, + Fed *1+ 68t$ Cir 1918L )orrells v Inited )tates, supra, at *5+-- t$e de(ense is

a'ailable, not in t$e 'ie% t$at t$e accused t$ou&$ &uilty may &o (ree, but t$at t$e &o'ernment cannot be permitted to

contend t$at $e is &uilty o( t$e crime %$en t$e &o'ernment o((icials are t$e insti&ators o( $is conductL see also ++

C@), #Criminal =a%,# )ec *5, 19* ed.

+9. +1 Am @r +d, #Criminal =a%,# )ec +

. C$ristop$er oore, #/$e Elusi'e Foundation o( t$e Entrapment De(ense,# Nort$%estern Ini'ersity =a% ;e'ie%,

'ol :90 1151, 115-115* )prin& 1995.L )cott C 2aton, #/$e !o'ernment ade e Do ?t0 A 2roposed Approac$ to

Entrapment under @acobson v Inited )tates,# Cornell =a% ;e'ie%, 'ol 790::5, 1-11 199*.L ;o&er 2arG,

#/$e Entrapment Contro'ersy,# innesota =a% ;e'ie%, 'ol 80 18, 185 1978.

1. /$e #sub3ecti'e# test is also re(erred to as t$e )$erman-)orrells doctrine, a re(erence to t$e (act t$at t$e test %as

adopted by a ma3ority o( t$e I) )upreme Court in t$e cases o( )$erman v Inited )tates, 58 I) 89, + = Ed +d

:*:, 7: ) Ct :19 195:. and )orrells v Inited )tates, supra// >ayne ; =aFa'e and Austin > )cott, @r, Criminal

=a%, 4ornbooG series, +d ed, p *++ 19:8.

+. )orrells v Inited )tates, supra, at *51-*5+L )$erman v Inited )tates, 58 I) 89, 7, + = ed +d :*:, 7: ) Ct

:19 195:.

. 2aton, supra, at 11-1+

*. =aFa'e and )cott, supra, at *++

5. )$erman v Inited )tates, supra, at 58 I) at 7+-7

8. Inited )tates v ;ussell, *11 I) *+, *5-*7, 8 = Ed +d 88, 7578, 9 ) Ct 187 197.L see also

2arG, supra, at 185

7. Or t$e ;oberts-FranG(urter approac$, a(ter t$e %riters o( t$e concurrin& opinions in )orrells and )$erman--

=aFa'e and )cott, supra, at *+

:. *57 2 +d ++8 AlasGa 1989.

9. !rossman v )tate, *57 2 +d ++8, ++9 AlasGa 1989.L 2aton, supra, at 1+

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 25/28

*. )orrells v Inited )tates, +:7 I) at *5, ;oberts, @, concurrin&L )$erman v Inited )tates, 58 I) at 7:-:5,

FranG(urter, ) , concurrin&

*1. !rossman v )tate, *57 2 +d ++8, ++9 AlasGa 1989.

*+. 2eople v Barraa, 591 2 +d 9*7, 955 Cali(ornia 1979.-- sellin& $eroin

*. 2eople v Barraa, supra, at 955

**. )$erman v Inited )tates, 58 I) 89, : 195:. FranG(urter, ) , concurrin&L !rossman v )tate, supra, at +L

see also 2arG, supra, Note +1+, at ++7

*5. =aFa'e and )cott, supra, at *+*

*8. !rossman v )tate, supra, at +L 2eople v Barraa, supra, at 955-958

*7. =aFa'e and )cott, supra, at *+5-*+8

*:.  0d  Ot$er ob3ections are also discussed in said booG

*9.  0d 

5.  0d 

51. 2aton, supra, at 15-18

5+. *85 )o +d 518 Fla 19:5.

5.  0d  at 5+1-5++

5*. 7*+ 2 +d 1* N 19:7.

55. 2aton, supra, at 19

58. 18 2$il ** 191.

57. /$is case %as interpreted in 2eople v 4ilario and A&uila, 9 2$il :8, 9 195., %$ere t$e )upreme Courtdeclared t$at t$e #criminal intent# to smoGe opium #ori&inated in t$e mind o( t$e entrappin& a&ent# and t$e accused

%as merely induced to commit t$e act by repeated and persistent solicitation ?n 2$elps, t$e court disre&arded t$e

e'idence o( 2$elps predisposition to commit t$e crime5:.  0d , at **-***

59. *8 2$il :57 19+.

8.  0d , at :81

81. 58 2$il ** 191.

8+.  0d  at 5-5*

8.  0d 

8*. 2a&e ::, section 57

85.  0d , at 5+-5L also cited in 2eople v 4ilario and A&uila, 9 2$il :8, :9-9 195.

88. * O! No +, p **78 19*1.

87.  0d , at **7:

8:. * O! No *, p 1+:8 19*7.

89.  0d , at 1+:7

7. 98 2$il 7:, 7*1 1955.

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 26/28

71.  0d L also cited in Auino, ;e'ised 2enal Code, 'ol +, p +* 1997.

7+. Absolutory causes are t$ose causes %$ere t$e act committed is a crime but (or reasons o( public policy and

sentiment t$ere is no penalty imposed-- ;eyes, ;e'ised 2enal Code, BooG ?, pp +1-++ 199.

7. 2eople v Cru, +1 )C;A 759 199*.L 2eople v 2olia, +1* )C;A 58 199+.L 2eople  v =apat$a, 187 )C;A 159

19::. citin& I) v 2$elps, supraL 2eople v Flores, 185 )C;A 71 19::.L 2eople v Ale, 1*5 )C;A 5 19:8.L

2eople v Fernando, 1*5 )C;A 151 19:8.L 2eople v. 2ato&, 1** )C;A *+9 19:8.L 2eople v almores, 1++ )C;A9++ 19:. citin& 2eople v. =ua C$u, etc

7*. 15+ )C;A +8, +71 19:7. Alt$ou&$ t$e accused did not raise t$e de(ense o( insti&ation, t$e court eHamined t$e

conduct o( t$e police at t$e buy-bust operation and admitted e'idence o( t$e accuseds past and predisposition tocommit t$e crime

75. Accused %as pre'iously con'icted o( (rustrated murder, robbery, $old-up and dru& pus$in& ?n t$e dru&-pus$in&

case, $e %as detained at >el(are'ille but escaped-- 2eople v Bo$olst, 15+ )C;A +8, +71 19:7.

78. 1:: )C;A 1, 15 199.

77. ;ic$ard C Donnelly, #@udicial Control o( ?n(ormants, )pies, )tool 2i&eons and A&ent 2ro'ocateurs,# /$e <ale

=a% @ournal, 'ol 80 191, 19 1951.


 ;eyes, ;e'ised 2enal Code, BooG ?, pp 5*-55 199.79.  0d 

:. Donnelly, supra, at 19 ?nstead o( #mala prohibita,# Donnelly uses t$e term #re&ulatory statutes#

:1.  0d 

:+.  0d 

:.  0d , at 19*

:*. 2eople v. )imon, +* )C;A 555, 58 199*.L 2eople v. Cru, +1 )C;A 759, 78* 199*.L 2eople v. Crisostomo,

+++ )C;A 511, 51* 199.L 2eople v Fernando, 1*5 )C;A 151, 159 19:8.L 2eople v. Ale, 1*5 )C;A 5, 5:-5919:8.


  0d :8. 2eople v Cru, +1 )C;A 759, 78*-785 199*.L 2eople v )alcedo, 195 )C;A *5, 5+ 1991.L 2eople v

>illiam, +9 )C;A ::, :1* 199+.L 2eople v. Ale, 1*5 )C;A 5, 5:-59 19:8.

:7. 591 2 +d 9*7 Cal 1979.

::.  0d  at 955 /$e )upreme Court o( Cali(ornia uoted ;ic$ard C Donnelly, #@udicial Control o( ?n(ormants, )pies,

)tool 2i&eons and A&ent 2ro'ocateurs,# <ale =a% @ournal, 'ol 80 191, 1111 1951., also $erein citedL )ee also

2aton, Cornell =a% ;e'ie%, supra, at Note 55 ?t must be noted, $o%e'er, t$at entrapment is not based on

constitutional &rounds as searc$ and seiure and (orced con(essions-- Inited )tates v ;ussell, *11 I) *+, *, 8= Ed +d 88, 7+-7, 9 ) Ct 187 197.

:9. /ambasen v 2eople, +*8 )C;A 1:* 1995.L 2eople v ;i&odon, +: )C;A +7 199*.L 2eople v Cru, +1 )C;A

759, 771 199*.

9. )orrells v Inited )tates, supra, at *57, ;oberts, ) , concurrin&

91. /ambasen v 2eople, +*8 )C;A 1:*, 191 1995.L 2eople v ;i&odon, +: )C;A +7, 5 199*.L 2eople v Cru,

+1 )C;A 759, 771 199*.

9+. 2eople v /adepa, +** )C;A 9, *1-*+ 1995.L 2eople v Crisostomo, +++ )C;A 511, 515 199.

9. 2eople v !iren&, +*1 )C;A 11 1995.L 2eople v Nicolas, +*1 )C;A 87 1995.L 2eople v arcelo, ++ )C;A

+* 199.

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 27/28

9*. 2eople v Ale, 1*5 )C;A 5 199*.

95. 2eople v )illo, +1* )C;A 7* 199+.

98. 2eople v )a$a&un, 1:+ )C;A 91 199.L 2eople v =iba&, 1:* )C;A 77, 717-715 199.L 2eople v ;amos,

1:8 )C;A 1:*, 191-19+ 199.

97. 2eople v =ucero, ++9 )C;A 1, 9-1 199*.L 2eople v /ranca, +5 )C;A *55, *8* 199*.L 2eople v )olon, +**)C;A 55*, 581 1995.L 2eople v 4errera, +*7 )C;A * 1995.

9:. 2eople v )olon, +** )C;A 55* 1995.L 2eople v On& Co, +*5 )C;A 7 1995.

99. /)N o( February +, 1998, pp 1*-1:L Emp$asis supplied

1. /)N o( February +, 1998, pp 18-17

11. 2eople v 2onsica, + )C;A :7, 95-98 199*.L 2eople v A&ustin, +15 )C;A 7+5, 7+-7 199+.

1+. 2eople v A&ustin, supra, at 7+-7

1.1 Emp$asis supplied1

1*. 2eople v. )ibu&, ++9 )C;A *:9 199*.L 2eople v de =ara, +8 )C;A +91 199*.L 2eople v =abarias, +17

)C;A *: 199.

15. )ections + and 6+, Article ???

18. 4ion v Court o( Appeals, +85 )C;A 517, 5+7 1998.L 2eople v Fernande, +9 )C;A 17*, 1:+-1: 199*.L

;oan v !onales, 1*5 )C;A 8:7, 897 19:8.L see also Bernas, /$e Constitution o( t$e ;epublic o( t$e 2$ilippines,

 p 189 1998.L Cru, Constitutional =a%, pp 1*7-15 19:8.

17. )ection 1+, ;ule 1+8L )ection 5, ;ule 11, ;e'ised ;ules on Criminal 2rocedure

1:. 2eople v Ba&ista, +1* )C;A 8, 89 199+.L 2eople v =o 4o >in&, 19 )C;A 1++, 1+8-1+: 1991.

19. ;oldan, @r v Arca, 85 )C;A 8, *: 1975.L 2apa v a&o, ++ )C;A :57, :71-:7* 198:.

11. 2eople v /abar, +++ )C;A 1**, 15 199.L ;oan v !onales, 1*5 )C;A 8:7, 897 19:8.


 2eople v. /abar, supra, at 15-15*L Al'are v CF?, 8* 2$il , *: 197.L 2eople v a&ui alasu&ui, 8 2$il++1, ++8 198.

11+. /)N o( February +, 1998, pp 17-1:L Direct eHaminationL Emp$asis supplied

11. /)N o( arc$ 1+, 1998, pp 18-1:, Cross-eHamination by counsel (or ioleta !addaoL Emp$asis supplied

11*. Compare %it$ 2eople v Bati, 1:9 )C;A 97, 1 199., %$ere t$e t%o accused %ere pursued and arrested a (e%

minutes a(ter consummatin& t$e sale o( mari3uana #4ot pursuit# $as a tec$nical meanin& ?t is a doctrine in

?nternational =a% %$ic$ means t$e pursuit in t$e $i&$ seas o( a (orei&n 'essel undertaGen by t$e coastal state %$ic$$as &ood reason to belie'e t$at t$e s$ip $as 'iolated t$e la%s and re&ulations o( t$at state 6)alon&a and <ap, 2ublic

?nternational =a%, p 9 199+.

115. Imil v. ;amos, ++ )C;A +51, +8 1991.L Inited )tates v )antos, 8 2$il :51 1917. 2olice o((icers $ad

 personal Gno%led&e o( t$e actual commission o( t$e crime a(ter conductin& a sur'eillance o( t$e accused 62eople v

Bati, 1:9 )C;A 97 199.L 2eople v )ucro, 195 )C;A :: 199., or a prior test-buy operation 62eople v ;amos,1:8 )C;A 1:* 199.

118.  0d 

117.  0d 

11:. 2O anlan&it a((irmed t$is (act in $is cross-eHamination by counsel (or appellant !addao-- /)N o( February

+, 1998, pp *+-*

7/26/2019 P v Doria Plainview Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/p-v-doria-plainview-doctrine 28/28

119. )2O1 Baduas testimony does not clearly establis$ %$ere $e (ound t$e marGed bills-- %$et$er (rom appellant

!addaos person or a(ter a searc$ o( $er $ouse

1+. 2amaran, /$e 19:5 ;ules on Criminal 2rocedure Annotated, p 195 1995.

1+1. 4arris v Inited )tates, 9 I) +*, 19 = Ed +d 187, 189 198:.L see also Bernas, supra, at 17*

1++. Coolid&e v. Ne% 4amps$ire, * I) **, +9 = Ed +d 58* 1971.L /eHas v Bro%n, *8 I) 7, 75 = Ed +d5+, 51 19:.L see also 2eople v usa, +17 )C;A 597, 811 199. citin& bot$ cases

1+. 4arris v. Inited )tates, supra, at 189

1+*. Coolid&e v Ne% 4amps$ire, supra, at 5:+

1+5. ;oan v !onales, 1*5 )C;A 8:7, 897 19:8.L Cru, supra, at 151

1+8. ;oan v !onales, supra, at 897, citin& 4arris v Inited )tates, supraL Bernas, supra, at 17* citin& Coolid&e v Ne% 4amps$ire, * I) **, *7+ 1971.

1+7. ;obbins v Cali(ornia, *5 I) *+, 89 = Ed +d 7**, 751 19:1.L also cited in 2eople v. usa, supra, at 81+

and Note *:L ArGansas v )anders, **+ I) 75, 81 = Ed +d +5, +*5, Note 1 1979.

1+:. ;obbins v Cali(ornia, supra, at 751L /eHas v. Bro%n, supra, at 51*

1+9. 2eople v usa, supra, at 811

1. /)N o( February +, 1998, pp **-*7L Emp$asis supplied

11. /)N o( February +, 1998, p 1

1+. /)N o( February +, 1998, pp 15-18

1. EH$ibits #F,# #!,# #4,# #?,# #@,# #,# #=,# #,# #N,# #OL# /)N o( February +, 1998, pp ++-+5L see also EH$ibit#)--# ;euest (or =aboratory EHamination

1*. ?n 2eople v. usa, +17 )C;A 597, 81+ 199., t$e Narcom a&ents (ound mari3uana in a plastic ba& $an&in& in

one corner o( t$e Gitc$en /$e a&ents $ad no clue as to t$e contents o( t$e ba& and $ad to asG t$e accused %$at it

contained /$e )upreme Court $eld t$at t$e mari3uana %as not in plain 'ie%


 )ection +, Bill o( ;i&$ts, 19:7 Constitution18. 2eople v. Aminnudin, 18 )C;A *, *1 19::.

17. /$e total %ei&$t o( 7,8*1: &rams or 78 Gilos o( mari3uana included t$e 97 &rams 6or almost one Gilo o( 

#buy-bust mari3uana# &i'en by appellant Doria 6)ee #;euest (or =aboratory EHamination,# EH$ibit #)# Deductin&

t$is 97 &rams, t$e ten bricGs o( mari3uana (ound in t$e boH %ei&$ 8,871: &rams or approHimately 8 Gilos

1:. 2eople v Aminnudin, 18 )C;A *+, *1 19::.

19.  0d 

1*.  0d , at *1-*11L also cited in 2eople v Flores, 185 )C;A 71, :5 19::.

1*1. 2eople v Ker'oulaGos, +*1 )C;A 8+5 1995.L 2eople v. artine, +5 )C;A 171 199*.L 2eople v ;i&odon,

+: )C;A +7 199*. /$e eHclusion or absence o( t$e marGed money does not create a hiatus in t$e prosecutionse'idence as lon& as t$e dru& sub3ect o( t$e ille&al transaction %as presented at t$e trial court-- 2eople v Nicolas, +*1

)C;A 57 1995.L 2eople v. =ucero, ++9 )C;A 1 199*.

1*+. )ection +, ;A 7859 amendin& Article 8+ o( t$e Dan&erous Dru&s ActL see also )ection 17 65, ;A 7859

amendin& )ection + o( t$e Dan&erous Dru&s Act