Dear PAO,
A loose firearm kept in a toolbox was seized during the execution of a search warrant. The firearm was not specified in the warrant so I questioned the inclusion of the firearm as evidence against me. The police justified the seizure under the Plain View Doctrine, and its discovery was by mere inadvertence. Can the gun kept inside a tool box and not in plain sight be said to be inadvertently discovered?
Tomilee
Dear Tomilee,
The right of the people against unreasonable search and seizure is enshrined under Section 2 of Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides that:
“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 affirmation 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.”
“Correlative thereto, its Section 3 (2) also states that:
“Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.”
In general, only the item/s specified in the search warrant should be seized. However, the Plain View Doctrine stands as an exception. This doctrine was explained in People of the Philippines v. Cu, GR 228589, Aug. 27, 2020, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta, stated that:
“Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling within the plain view of a law enforcement officer, who has a right to be in a position to have that view, may be validly seized by such officer without a warrant and, thus, may be introduced in evidence. An object is deemed in plain view when it is ‘open to eye and hand’ or is ‘plainly exposed to sight.’ In Miclat, Jr. v. People, we identified the three (3) requisites that must concur in order to validly invoke the doctrine, to wit:
“The ‘plain view’ doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (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; (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.”
Also, in Comamo v. People of the Philippines, GR 236548, March 4, 2025, penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez, the Supreme Court held that:
“Indeed, under the plain view doctrine, an object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight, such that when the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant.
“True, while inside the cabinet, the seized firearms and ammunitions could not have been said to have been in plain view. But it must be pointed out that at such time, i.e., before the cabinet was opened, the plain view doctrine was yet to take effect. This is because before the confiscation of the items, the enforcers were acting completely within the authority of the search warrant. The operation, therefore, was conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant and not yet pursuant to a valid warrantless search.
“The plain view doctrine only found application once the circumstance has been removed from the mantle of the search warrant’s authority, i.e., from the moment the officers inadvertently discovered in the course of their search obviously contraband items not specifically described in the warrant. It was at this precise moment when the cabinet was opened and the items inadvertently discovered that the operation was taken outside the purview of the search warrant. Yet, at such time, with the cabinet open, the firearms and ammunition have been exposed to the officers’ plain sight and their apparent unlawful nature made immediately apparent, authorizing their warrantless seizure.”
Applying the above-quoted decisions to your situation, the plain view doctrine applies to warrantless search and seizure, and not in situations where police officers are validly searching for items pursuant to a search warrant. Thus, if the police officers were conducting a valid search at the time the toolbox was opened, the plain view doctrine was not yet in effect.
It was only upon discovery of the loose firearm, an item not specifically described in the warrant, that the plain view doctrine took effect. At that time, the loose firearm was immediately apparent. It also appears that the discovery of the loose firearm was inadvertent, such that the police officers were not aware in advance that it was kept inside a toolbox. Finally, the police officers had justification for the intrusion because they were implementing a search warrant. Hence, all the elements of a warrantless search under the plain view doctrine are present.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
