Plain view doctrine – we need to remember the elements of the plain view

doctrine. What are the elements of the plain view doctrine.

1. A prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit
of their official duties;
2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right
to be where they are;
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent to be evidence of a crime; and
4. The plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.
Let me call your attention to element number 3, the evidence must be immediately
apparent to be evidence of a crime what do we mean by this? Meron po kasi
misconception ung plain view doctrine. Sometimes it is confusing because of the
title of the doctrine itself. PLAIN VIEW. And if we say plain view, the evidence
should be exposed to sight, or readily apparent on the face of that thing to be an
illegal item or evidence of a crime. What I want you to know however, that we can
apply this doctrine even if the evidence is not exposed to sight but the distinctive
configuration of the thing will support the conclusion that it is an illegal item or
evidence of a crime. The distinctive configuration of the evidence doctrine that
may be applied under this concept plain view. Let me explain, Ano tong distinctive
configuration of evidence doctrine, ngayon niyo lang ba narinig to? Distinctive
configuration of the evidence doctrine. Si Mr. Bay-an Police, and a police officer,
he was conducting a foot patrol somewhere in Burnham Park Baguio City. Nag
roronda si Mr. Bay-an bilang police. Nakasalubong niya na naglalakad sa
Burnharm Park si Mr. Dela Rosa, nung Nakita ni Mr. Bay-an si Mr Dela Rosa,
napansin ni Mr. Bay-an na para bang merong bagay na matigas na nakaumbok sa
pantalon ni Mr. Dela Rosa. Isang bagay na matigas at mahaba. Ano kaya ang
bagay na to? Upon further examination, visual examination, ang matigas at
mahabang bagay na Nakita sa pantalon ni Mr. Dela Rosa, it has the distinctive
configuration of a gun. Merong distinctive configuration ang baril. It will have a
barrel and a handle. Kung pistola yan, .45 caliber pistol, you cannot deny the
characteristic or shape of that weapon/ Applicable ba ang plain view doctrine?
YES. Using the distinctive configuration or characteristic of evidence as a
justification. Papasok parin siya sa plain view. Understand. Pag plain view
doctrine, hindi palaging exposed to the sight. In fact, the police can use their other
senses to determine whether or not there’s an illegal item or evidence particularly
in the possession of the person to be arrested and to be subjected to an incidental
search.
Another example, nag fofoot patrol ang isang police, meron siyang nakitang
naninigarilyo sa isang madalim na alley, well smoking is not a crime, generally,
pag daan ng police sa taong naninigarilyo na to, he actually smelled/ naamoy niya
ung distinctive aroma ng marijuana. Iba kasi ung amoy ng marijuana eh, mas
masulasok ang amoy, masmatapang ung amoy. Hindi mo naman alam na
marijuana yan agad eh. But by using your other senses and you smelled it, you can
also conclude, “hey this is an illegal item” I can smell that it is a marijuana. Can
you apply the plain view doctrine? Even if the evidence is not automatically
exposed to sight, or readily apparent as evidence of a crime? Yes. Because of the
other senses that the arresting person can use to determine whether or not the thing
or item will be evidence of a crime. Distinctive Configuration of evidence doctrine.
Papasok din siya sa plain view doctrine, kahit na hindi exposed to the sight. Kung
ang hukuman, it can use all of its senses to appreciate evidence, otoptic preference,
where the court will appreciate the evidence using its five senses. An arresting
officer as well can use its five senses to appreciate possible evidence of a crime.
Kaya nga misleading ung plain view doctrine na ung mata mo lang ang gagamitin
mo to appreciate an evidence. Kung ang judge, allowed to use all of its senses,
ganon din ang police and your eyes can betray, to fully appreciate the evidence,
you can see the evidence, you can feel the evidence, you can hear the evidence,
you can even taste the evidence if necessary. Taste the evidence to convince
yourself if it is really evidence of a crime. Hindi lang lahat exposes sa sight.
Automobile search or moving vehicle search. Particularly applied to sa isang
automobile or land vehicle. Wag kang pilosopo na applicable ang moving vehicle
sa isang aeroplano or bapor. Paano mo pipigilan ang isang eroplano sa kalangitan.
Ganon din ung bapor. Automobile or moving vehicle search, ang tawag ng
americano dito dahil sila ang unang nag develop ng doctrine, Caroll Doctrine.
They allow this as one justification for a warrantless search and sezuire in order to
prevent an accused during a hot pursuit from escaping from one jurisdiction to
another jurisdiction. Kasi sa mga amerikano, iba ang Sistema ng kanilang
gobyerno, They are federal states. Halimbawa nag umpisa ung hot pursuit,
hinahabol mo ung isang akusado, na nagmamaneho ng kotse sa state of California,
ang mga police ng state of California, they cannot just enter another state in order
to continue a hot pursuit. Papasok ung isang sasakyan sa state of California to the
state of Nevada, kelangan meron proper coordination sa police ng state of Nevada,
for the authorities for the state of Nevada to continue with the hot pursuit. Pero sa
pilipinas, wala naman ganyang rule, kung nag umpisa ang hot pursuit sa apari,
pwede mong ituloy yan hangang jolo kung kaya mo, kung may gasoline ka. Ang
justification ng automobile or moving vehicle search in the Philippines is to
prevent the possibility that the subject of the arrest and search will escape. The
possibility of flight. Yun lang ang justification niya, to avoid the possibility of
flight. This is specifically applied to motor vehicles or land vehicles. Kelan natin
masasabi na ang isang sasakyan ay moving, kailan na ang isang sasakyan ay
moving. When the engine is on. Kahit na nakapark yan, pero buhay ang makina,
considered na yan as moving vehicle. Hindi lang siya literal na umaandar. If the
engine is on, you can already apply the automobile or moving vehicle doctrine.
What kind of search will be allowed in so far as moving vehicles, because we can
connect it also to police or military checkpoints. Kalimitan, naiinspect ang isang
sasakyan kung merong checkpoints. What will be the allowable search? It will only
be limited to visual search. Tinatawag din natin siyang flash and point search. So
kung gabi, you can use a flash light in order to search the vehicle inside. Are you
allowed to order the occupant of the vehicle to open other compartments in that
vehicle? GR. NO! In the absence of independent evidence that will justify a more
extensive search, police officers are only limited to a visual search or flash and
point search. Kelangan meron pang independent evidence, clearly pointing to the
occupant of the vehicle as one who possibly committed a crime. Other supporting
evidence, a tip will not be sufficient, mere suspicion of the police, manning the
checkpoint will not be sufficient. Because suspicion is not evidence. Kung wala na
siyang independent evidence, hinala lang or tip, limited lang siya sa visual search
or flash and point search. Hindi pwede ang extensive search jan. In the absence of
any other independent evidence that will establish probable cause. So the rule now
actually if I may say so even for vehicles to avoid challenges later in the course of
the trial pag naglelecture tayo sa police, kahit na moving vehicle yan, mag apply ka
parin ng search warrant. Consider the necessity palagi if you have time to apply for
search warrant then do it. \
Another controversial rule, stop and frisk. Tawag din dito, Terry search. Because
the origin again will be American jurisprudence, you have the case of Terry vs
Ohio. Aside from terry search, patty search because the policemen will pat or frisk
the body of the person in search of evidence. It is a regulatory search rather than
probable cause-oriented search. In past jurisprudence, ang sabi ng SC, mere
suspicion will already be sufficient to conduct a stop and frisk search in past
jurisprudence. NOT ANYMORE. Dati merong mga illustrative cases where the
supreme court allowed a stop and frisk search on the basis of mere suspicion.
Examples nag conduct ng stop and frisk search ang mga police conducting a foot
patrol dahil ung mga akusado, namumula ang mga mata. Yun lang ang basis. Red
eyes, indicative daw that the person is using drugs. Sabi ng SC justified kasi may
suspicion eh.
Another illustrative example, the person who was arrested was merely wearing
camouflage jacket. Yun lang kasalanan nya. Kakaiba daw para sa isang tao na mag
suot ng uniporme ng sundalo.
Another case, ung suspect pasuraysuray ung lakad dahil lasing. Kasalanan ba yon,
eh lasing ka nga eh. How can you control your movement. SC said that it is a
suspicion that a person committed a crime.
Finally, the SC corrected the rule in Malakat vs Court of Appeals. A suspicion or a
hunch will not validate a stop and frisk. So nandun padin ung suspicion or hunch
but there must also be genuine belief on the part of the police officers under the
surrounding circumstances to warrant that belief that the person arrested has
weapons concealed on him. Eto ung evolution ng stop and frisk. In Malakat vs
Court of Appeals, kaya siya regulatory search and not probable cause oriented
warrantless search and seizure ang primary beneficiary niya ay ang police. If the
police believed that there’s real danger on their person, they can invoke the stop
and frisk rule but the hunch or suspicion should be again supported by other
independent evidence that will allow the police to search for weapons. It a tool for
self-preservation for our police. Kaya justified ang stop and frisk dito sa pilipinas,
pursuant to the case of malakat vs Court of appeals. Primarily to protect the police
kaya regulatory search lang ang stop and frisk.
Search during emergency circumstances. Why do we allow warrantless searches
during emergency circumstances? It will be based on practical considerations. The
lack of sufficient time to secure a search warrant. Halimbawa, Marawi siege, You
are aware of that event in history that happened in the year 2017, a city in southern
Philippines, Marawi city, it was occupied by group of terrorist and there was
intense fighting in that city. Police ka, sundalo ka, may reasonable suspicion ka na
sa isang building sa Marawi, doon nag tatago ung mga terrorista. They are using it
as hideout for themselves and also to maintain their weapons and ammunitions. A
cache for weapons and ammunitions. Ikaw bilang sundalo, klaro na sayo kung ano
ang kalaban at that time, mag aaply ka pa ba ng search warrant? Mukhang hindi na
praktikal ang pag aapply ng search warrant. Because of the emergency situation.
What can be considered as an emergency however, will depend on the situations of
the case. Ang criteria jan, meron bang sufficient opportunity ung police or
authorities our soldiers to secure a search warrant. If the situation demands an
immediate action, it will fall under this rule.

Custom and airport searches – Read the case of people vs saluday, because sabi ng
supreme court, pag airports, bus terminals because these types of businesses and
facilities although privately owned and operated will be open to the public, the
state will have the right to participate in less intrusive searches in order to protect
the riding public. This is considered as reasonable warrantless search and seizures.
For custom searches, it is justified precisely to avoid acts of smuggling but recent
considerations will further justify warrantless custom search. What is that?
Terrorism is a good justification to conduct custom searches and seizures even in
the absence of a warrant.
Police and military check points – we still have the land mark case of revilla case
ung justification ng police and military check points is a matter of self-preservation
and national interest to allow operations of police and military checkpoints and
Nakita din natin ung necessity during pandemic.
In the absence of independent evidence that may establish probable cause, in
conducting police and military checkpoints, it will only be limited to visual search.
Opening of compartments, not allowed in the absence of any other evidence that
will support the finding of probable cause.
Administrative searches – inspections for compliance with building, fires, sanitary,
environmental laws and regulations, We can even include inspections conducted
by the BIR because for journals, books and accounts members of the BIR can also
conduct warrantless searches and seizure by examining books, journals and
accounts particularly of business establishments as well as professional offices to
determine whether they are paying right taxes. What will justify the administrative
searches even in the absence of a search warrant? It will be the police power of the
state because these types of searches will be for purposes of regulations and that is
justified under the police power of the state.