PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

JAYLORD DIMAL AND ALLAN CASTILLO, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 216922, April 18, 2018.

With respect to the items under Return on the Search Warrant indicated as "articles recovered/seized in plain view during the conduct of the search," it is well settled that objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence.

For the "plain view doctrine" to apply, it is required that the following requisites are present: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

As explained in People v. Salanguit:

What the 'plain view' cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he can inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification-whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to a lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused-and permits the warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the 'plain view' doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges.

The first requisite of the "plain view doctrine" is present in this case because the seizing officer, P/Insp. Macadangdang, has a prior justification for an intrusion into the premises of the Felix Gumpal Compound, for he had to conduct the search pursuant to a valid warrant. 

However, the second and third requisites are absent, as there is nothing in the records to prove that the other items not particularly described in the search warrant were open to eye and hand, and that their discovery was unintentional.

XXX

Bearing in mind that once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed, the "plain view doctrine" can no longer provide any basis for admitting the other items subsequently found, the Court rules that the recovery of the items seized in plain view, which could have been made after the seizure of Gemma's clothes, are invalid.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BILLY ACOSTA, G.R. 238865, JANUARY 28, 2019

Thus, when the police officers proceeded to Acosta's abode, they were already alerted to the fact that there could possibly be marijuana plants in the area. 

This belies the argument that the discovery of the plants was inadvertent. In People v. Valdez, the Court held that the "plain view" doctrine cannot apply if the officers are actually "searching" for evidence against the accused, to wit: 

Note further that the police team was dispatched to appellant's kaingin precisely to search for and uproot the prohibited flora.

The seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Clearly, their discovery of the cannabis plants was not inadvertent. We also note the testimony of SPO2 Tipay that upon arriving at the area, they first had to "look around the area" before they could spot the illegal plants.

Patently, the seized marijuana plants were not "immediately apparent" and a "further search" was needed. 

In sum, the marijuana plants in question were not in "plain view" or "open to eye and hand." The "plain view" doctrine, thus, cannot be made to apply.

X X X

Verily, it could not be gainsaid that the discovery was inadvertent when the police officers already knew that there could be marijuana plants in the area. 

Armed with such knowledge, they would naturally be more circumspect in their observations. 

In effect,they proceeded to Acosta's abode, not only to arrest him for the mauling incident, but also to verify Salucana's report that Acosta was illegally planting marijuana.

Thus, the second requisite for the "plain view" doctrine is absent. Considering that the "plain view" doctrine is inapplicable to the present case, the seized marijuana plants are inadmissible in evidence against Acosta for being fruits of the poisonous tree.