PNP: SC ruling on plain view requirement for admissible evidence won’t lead to abuses
The Philippine National Police on Thursday welcomed a Supreme Court ruling on the admissibility of evidence not in plain view of authorities during a lawful arrest, while assuring the public that it would not be abused by law enforcers.
In a decision made public on Wednesday, the high tribunal’s First Division said that items seized during a valid warrantless arrest can be admitted as evidence even if these were not initially visible to the police.
Previously, only plainly visible items were admissible, raising concerns that key evidence could be excluded on technicalities.
According to PNP chief Gen. Jose Melencio Nartatez Jr., the high court ruling clarified the rules on admissibility.
“It empowers our officers as evidence will not be wasted on technicalities as long as the initial stop or search was valid. As police officers, it is our responsibility to enforce the law correctly and fairly to all citizens,” Nartatez said in a statement.
He stressed that the ruling does not grant police officers unchecked authority.
“The SC ruling doesn’t mean we can search anyone at any time,” Nartatez said. “We assure the public that the PNP will continue to serve with integrity and respect for the rule of law.”
The PNP chief added that the decision will affect routine operations and investigations nationwide.
“We will review and update our standard operating procedures (SOP) to align with the ruling while protecting citizens’ rights. Even if the ‘plain view’ requirement is relaxed, it should be clear that there is probable cause. Our focus is on documenting the legality of the operations,” Nartatez said.
SOP to be reviewed
He added that the PNP will enforce strict internal monitoring and accountability measures to prevent abuse.
The ruling of the high tribunal’s First Division, penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario affirmed the conviction of Jeryl Bautista for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Bautista was arrested in a 2017 drug bust after he handed over to an undercover police officer a sachet of “shabu” (crystal meth) worth P500. When he was frisked, the police found three more sachets of suspected shabu hidden inside a cellphone charger.
Bautista, however, challenged his conviction, saying the additional sachets should not have been admitted as evidence because they were not in plain view of the police officers during his arrest.
In rejecting Bautista’s argument, the high court said that “the plain view doctrine is not always required to justify a warrantless search, particularly when police officers search a person who has just been lawfully arrested.” —PNA WITH A REPORT FROM TETCH TORRES-TUPAS
