In yesterday’s case (Abelita III vs. Doria and Ramirez, G.R. 170672, August 14, 2009), one of the causes of action relied upon by the Judge (Abe) who filed the case for damages against the police officers (Dario and Romy) is the violation of his right to be secure in one’s person, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In this case, Dario and Romy invited Abe to their headquarters to shed light on a shooting incident where witnesses interviewed by Romy in an investigation conducted upon receipt of a telephone call implicated Abe who was then present at the scene. In their testimonies at the trial of the suit for damages filed by Abe before the RTC of QC for violating his rights against unreasonable search and seizure, Dario and Romy said that Abe initially agreed to go with them but suddenly sped towards his house so they gave chase. After the chase when they caught up with Abe as he opened the door of his vehicle to run towards the house, Dario and Romy saw the .45 caliber firearm beside the driver’s seat and a shotgun at the back. They seized the firearms and charged Abe with illegal possession thereof.
Abe on the other hand said that he was merely framed up by Dario and Romy who violated his rights against unreasonable search and seizure when they confiscated the firearms without a valid search warrant.
But the RTC QC gave more credence to the version of Dario and Romy because of the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. So the RTC dismissed the complaint or damages and ruled that Dario and Romy should not be liable for damages for their actions. Was the RTC correct?
Yes. The seizure of the firearms was justified under the plain view doctrine. Under this doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (1) 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; (2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent or accidental; and (3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he sees may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
In this case, the police officers were in the area because that was where they caught up with Abe after the chase. They saw the firearms inside the vehicle when Abe opened the door. Since a shooting incident just took place and it was reported that Abe was involved in the incident, it was apparent to the police officers that the firearms may be evidence of the crime. Hence they were justified in seizing the firearms, under the plain view doctrine.
It was also established in this case that Abe was lawfully arrested without a warrant and that the firearms were validly seized from his possession. In fact he was charged with illegal possession of firearms and frustrated murder. Hence the RTC is right in rejecting Abe’s allegation that he was merely framed up. The police officers were presumed to be performing their duties in accordance with law. They are therefore not civilly liable for their actions.
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net