402

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People us. Aminnudin

No. L-74869. July 6,1988.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

AMINNUDIN y AHNI, defendant-appellant.

vs.

IDEL

Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Wa"ant of A"est; Rule 113

of the Rules of Court inapplicable in a"est without warrant.-Warrantless
arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court not justified unless the
accused was caught in flagrante or a crime was about to be committed or
had just been committed. The evidence of probable caused should be
determined by a judge and not by law-enforcement agents.
Same; Same; Search Wa"ani; Vessels and aircraft may be searched
without search

wa"ant.-Vessels

and aircraft are subject to warrantless

searches and seizures for violation of the Customs Law, because these
vehicles may be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction before a
warrant can be secured.
Same; Same; Same; When a search cannot be considered an incident
ofa lawful a"est.-A search cannot be considered an incident of a lawful
arrest if there is no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest does not
come under the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Euidence; Presumption of Innocence; The innocence
ofthe

accused

is

constitutionally

presumed.-The

constitutional

presumption is that the accused is presumed innocent even if his defense is

weak as long as the prosecution is not strong enough to convict him.
Same;

Same;

Same;

Evidence

obtained

in

illegal

searches,

inadmissible.-lt the warrantless search was illegal, the evidence obtained is

inadmissible. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree, to use Justice Holmes'
felicitous phrase.
Same; Same; The extend of the mantle of protection of the Constitution.
-The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the innocent and
the guilty alike against any manner of highhandedness from the authorities,
however praiseworthy their intentions.

FIRST DIVISION.
403

VOL. 163, JULY 6, 1988

403

People vs. Aminnudin

APPEAL from the decision of the Court of First Instance oflloilo

City.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Herminio T. Llariza counsel de-officio for defendant
appellant.
CRUZ,.!.:
The accused-appellant claimed his business was selling watches but
he was nonetheless arrested, tried and found guilty of illegally
transporting marijuana. The trial court, disbelieving him, held it was
high time to put him awa1 and sentenced him to life imprisonment
plus a fine of P20,000.00.
Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June 25,1984, shortly after
disembarking from the MN Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening,
in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for him
simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked
liked marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for
investigation. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated
from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination.
When they were verified as marijuana leaves, an information
for
2
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Later,
the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who
had also been arrested with him that same evening and likewise
3
4
investigated. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against
Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers
s
absolving her after a "thorough investigation." The motion was
granted, and trial proceeded
only against the accused-appellant, who
6
was eventually convicted.

Rollo,p. 29.

2 Ibid.,

p. 2.

3 Original Records, p. 6.
4 Ibid.,
s

p. 20.

"Exh. 1," Original Records, p. 204.

6 Original Records, p. 26.

404

404

SUPREME C OURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People

vs.

Aminnudin

According to the prosecution, the PC officers had earlier received a

tip from one of their informers that the accusedappellant was on
7

board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. He
8

was identified by name. Acting on this tip, they waited for him in
the evening of June 25, 1984, and approached him as he descended
9

from the gangplank after the informer had pointed to him. They
detained him and inspected the bag he was carryin g. It was found to
contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves
10

by an NBI forensic examiner,

who testified that she condueted

microscopic, cheihical and chromatographic tests on them. On the

basis of this fmding, the corresponding charge was then filed against
Aminnudin.

In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana, averring

that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket, two
II

shirts and two pairs of pants.

He alleged that he was arbitrarily

arrested and immediately handcuffed. His bag was confiscated

without

search

warrant.

At the

PC

headquarters,

he

was

manhandled to force him to admit he was carrying the marijuana, the

investigator hitting him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms
12

even as he parried the blows while he was still handcuffed.

He

insisted he did not even knoW what marijuana looked like and that
13

his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes.

He also

argued that the marijuana he was alleged to have been carrying was
not properly identified and could have been any of several bundles
14

kept in the stock room of the PC headquarters.

The

trial

court

was

unconvinced,

noting

from

its

own

examination of the accused that he claimed to have come to Iloilo

City to sell watches but carried only two watches at the time,
traveling from Jolo for that purpose and spending Pl07.00 for

1 TSN, Sept. 19,1984, p. 5; Oct. 25,1984, p. 31.

s TSN, Oct. 25,1984, p. 29.
9 TSN, Sept. 19,1984, pp. 6-7.

10 TSN, Sept. 5,1984, pp. 8-10.

11 TSN,Aug. 15,1985, p. 3.
12 Ibiti., pp. 8-9; 19-20.
13 Jd., pp. 10 & 13.
14 Brief for the Appellant, p. 22.
405

VOL. 163, JULY 6, 1988

405

People vs. Aminnudin

15

fare, not to mention his other expenses.

Aminnudin testified that he

kept the two watches in a secret pocket below his belt but, strangely,
they were not discovered when he was bodily searched by the
arresting officers nor were they damaged as a result of his
16

manhandling.

He also said he sold one of the watches for P400.00

and gave away the other, although the watches belonged not to him
17

but to his cousin,

18

know.

to a friend whose full name he said did not even

The trial court also rejected his allegations of maltreatment,

observi\1$ that he had not sufficiently proved the injuries sustained

by him.
There is no justification to reverse these factual findings,
considering that it was the trial judge who had immediate access to
the testimony of the witnesses and had the opportunity to weigh
their credibility 011 the stand. Nuances of tone or voice, meaningful
pauses and hesitation, flush of face and dart of eyes, which may
reveal the truth or expose the lie, are not described in the impersonal
record. But the trial judge sees all of this, discovering for himself the
truant fact amidst the falsities.
The only exception we may make in this case is the trial court's
conclusion that the accused-appellant was not really beaten up
because he did not complain about it later nor did he submit to a
medical examination. That is hardly fair or realistic. It is possible
Aminnudin never had that opportunity as he was at that time under
detention by the PC authorities and in fact has never been set free
since he was arrested in 1984 and up to the present. No bail has been
allowed for his release.
There is one point that deserves closer examination, however,
and it js Aminnudin's claim that he was arrested and searched
without warrant, making the marijuana allegedly found in his
possession inadmissible in evidence against him under the Bill of
Rights. The decision did not even discuss this point. For his part, the
Solicitor General dismissed this after an all-too-short argument that
the arrest of Aminnudin was

15 Rollo, p. 28.
16 TSN, Aug. 15, 1985, pp. 17-18; 22-24.

17 Ibid., p. 29.
18fd., p. 4.

19 Rollo, p. 28.
406

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

406

People vs. Aminnudin

valid because it came under Rule 113, Seetion 6(b) of the Rules of
Court on warrantless arrests. This made the search also valid as
incidental to a lawfiil arrest.
It is not disputed, and in fact it is admitted by the PC officers
who testified for the prosecution, that they had no warrant when they
arrested Aminnudin and seized the bag he was carrying. Their only
justification was the tip they had earlier received from a reliable and
regular informer who reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving
in Iloilo by boat with marijuana. Their testimony varies as to the
time they received the tip, one saying it was two days before the

arrest,

another two weeks

and a third "weeks before June 25."

On this matter, we may prefer the declaration of the chief of the

arresting team, Lt. Cipriano Querol, Jr., who testified as follows:

"Q

You mentioned an intelligence report, you mean with respect to

the coming ofldel Aminnudin on June 25,1984?

"A

Yes, sir.

"Q When did you receive this intelligence report?

"A

Two days before June 25, 1984 and it was supported by reliable
sources.

"Q Were you informed of the coming of theWilcon 9 and the

possible trafficking of marijuana leaves on that date?
"A

Yes, sir, two days before June 25,1984 when we received this
information from that particular informer, prior to June 25, 1984
we have already reports of the particularoperation which was
being participated by Idel Aminhudin.

"Q

You said you received an intelligence report two days before

June 25,1984 with respect to the coming ofWilcon 9?

"A

Yes, sir.

"Q

Did you receive any other report aside from this intelligence
report?

"A

Well, I have received also other reports but not pertaining to the
coming ofWilcon 9. For instance, report of illegal gambling
operation.

20

TSN, Oct. 25,1984, p. 31.

21 TSN, Sept. 19,1984, p. 19.

22

TSN,Oct. 25,1984, p. 12.

407

VOL. 163, JULY 6, 1988

407

People vs. Aminnudin

"COURT:

"Q

Previous to that particular information which you said two days

before June 25, 1984, did you also receive any report regarding
the activities ofldel Aminnudin?

"A

Previous to June 25,1984 we received reports on the activities of

Idel Aminnudin.

"Q What were those activities?

"A

Purely marijuana trafficking.

"Q

From whom did you get that information?

"A

It came to my hand which was written in a required sheet of

information, maybe for secufity reason and we cannot identify
the person.

"Q

But you received it from your regular informer?

"A

Yes, sir.

"ATTY. LLARIZA:

"Q

Previous to June 25, 1984, you were more or less sure that Idel
Aminnudin is coming with drugs?

"A

Marijuana, sir.

"Q

And this information respecting Idel Aminnudin's coming to

Iloilo with marijuana was received by you many days before
you received the intelligence report in writing?

"A

Not a report of the particular coming of Aminnudin but his

activities.
"Q

You only knew that he was coming on June 25,1984 two days
before?

"A

Yes, sir.

"Q

You mean that before June 23, 1984 you did not know that
Aminnudin was coming?

"A

Before June 23,1984,1, in my capacity, did not know that he

was coming but on June 23, 1984 that was the time when I
received the information that he was coming. Regarding the
reports on his activities, we have reportsthat he was already
consummated the act of selling and shipping marijuana stuff.

"COURT:
"Q

And as a result of that report, you put him under surveillance?

"A

Yes, sir.

"Q

In the intelligence report, only the name ofidel Aminnudin was

mentioned?

"A

Yes, sir.

"Q

Are you sure of that?

408

408

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Aminnudin

"A

On the 23rd he will be coming with the woman.

"Q

So that even before you received the oflicial report on June 23,
1984, you had already gathered information to the effect that
Idel Aminnudin was coming to Iloilo on June 25,1984?

"A

Only on the 23rd of June.

"Q

You did not try to secure a search warrant for the seizure or
search of the subject mentioned in your intelligence report?

"A

No,more.

"Q

Why not?

"A

Because we were very very sure that our operation will yield
positive result.

"Q

Is that your procedure that whenever it will yield positive result

you do not need a search warrant anymore?

"A

Search warrant is not necessry."

23

That last answer is a cavalier pronouncement, especially as it comes

from a mere lieutenant of the PC. The Supreme Court cannot
countenance such a statement. This is still a government of laws and
not of men.
The mandate of the Bill of Rights is clear:
"Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirm ation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized.11

In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant

issued by a judge after personal determination by him of the
existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the
government, the accused-appellant was not caught in jlagrante nor
was a crime about to be committed or had just been committed to
justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court. Even expediency could not

23

TSN, Oct. 25,1984, pp. 31-33.

409

VOL. 163, JULY 6, 1988

409

People vs. Aminnudin

be invoked to dispense with the obtention of the warrant as in the

24

case of Roldan v. Arca,

for example. Here it was held that vessels

and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches and seizures for

violation of the customs law because these vehicles may be quickly
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction before the warrant can be
secured.
The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting
declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two
days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and
search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9.
His name was known. The vehicle was identified. The date of its
arrival was certain. And from the information they had received,
they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause,
indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No

effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was
ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of
the arresting team, had determined on his own authority that a
"search warrant was not necessary."
In the many cases where this Court has sustained the warrantless
arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it has always been
shown that they were caught red-handed, as a result of what
are
25
popularly called "buy-bust" operations of the narcotics agents. Rule
1 13 was clearly applicable because at the precise time of arrest the
accused was in the act of selling the prohibited drug.
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment
of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about
to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was
descending the gangplank of the MN Wilcon 9 and there was no
outward indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he
was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from
the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the
carrier of the marijuana that he

24

65 SCRA 336.

2s People v.
v.

Rubio, 142 SCRA 329; People v. Madarang, 147 SCRA 123; People

Sarmiento, 147 SCRA 252; People v. Cerelegia; 147 SCRA 538; People v.

Fernando, G.R. Ne. L-68409, December 1, 1987.

410

410

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People

us.

Aminnudin

suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the

furtive finger that triggered his arrest. The identification by the
informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers (and
not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and
immediately arrest him.
Now that we have succeeded in restoring democracy in our
country after fourteen years of the despised dictatorship, when any
one could be picked up at will, detained without charges and
punished without trial, we will have only ourselves to blame if that
kind of arbitrariness is allowed to return, to once more flaunt its
disdain of the Constitution and the individual liberties its Bill of
Rights guarantees.
While this is not to say that the accused-appellant is innocent, for
indeed his very own words suggest that he is lying, that fact alone

does not justify a finding that he is guilty. The constitutional

presumption is that he is innocent, and he will be so declared even if
his defense is weak as long as the prosecution is not strong enough
to convict him.
Without the evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from
Aminnudin, the case of the prosecution must fall. That evidence
cannot be admitted, and should never have been considered by the
trial court for the simple fact is that the marijuana was seized
illegally. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree, to use Justice Holmes'
felicitous phrase. The search was not an incident of a lawful arrest
because there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did
not come under the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court.
Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the evidence
obtained thereby was inadmissible.
The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government
against drug addiction and commends the efforts of our law
enforcement officers against those who would inflict this
malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But
as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than
the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of the liberty
of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals.
The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the
innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-handedness
from the authorities, however praiseworthy their iiitentions.
411

VOL. 163,JULY 6, 1988

411

People vs. Aminnudin

Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in
disregarding the rights of the individual in the name of order. Order
is too high a price for the loss of liberty. As Jjustice Holmes, again,
said, "I think it a less evil that some criminals should escape than
that the government should play an ignoble part." It is simply not
allowed in the free society to violate a law to enforce another,
especially if the law violated is the Constitution itself.
We find that with the exclusion of the illegally seized marijuana
as evidence against the accused-appellant, his guilt has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt and he must therefore be
discharged on the presumption that he is innocent.
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the trial court is REVERSED
and the accused-appellant is ACQUITTED. It is so ordered.
Narvasa, Gancayco

and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Grino-Aquino, J.,

AQUINO, J.,

see attached dissenting opinion.

dissenting-

respectfully dissent. I hold that the accused was caught in

jlagrante, for he was carrying marijuana leaves in his bag at the
moment of his arrest. He was not "innocently disembarking from the
vessel." The unauthorized transportation of marijuana (Indian
hemp), which is a prohibited drug, is a crime. (Sec. 4, Rep. Act No.
6425). Since he was committing a crime, his arrest could be lawfully
effected without a warrant (Sec. 6a, Rule 113, Rules of Court), and
the search of his bag (which yielded the marijuana leaves) without a
search warrant was also lawful (Sec. 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court). I
vote to affirm the judgment of the trial court fmding him guilty of
illegally transporting marijuana.
I

Decision reversed.

application for search warrant if based on hearsay

cannot standing alone, justify the issuance of that writ. (Roan vs.
Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687.)
Note.-An

Oo--

-----o

412

Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.