CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the 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; and (3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. 

In Abelita III vs. Doria, the Supreme Court stated that the police officers were justified in seizing the firearms because the police authorities were in the area because that was where they caught up with petitioner after the chase. They saw the firearms inside the vehicle when petitioner opened the door. Since a shooting incident just took place and it was reported that petitioner was involved in the incident, it was apparent to the police officers that the firearms may be evidence of a crime. Hence, they were justified in seizing the firearms (ABELITA III vs. DORIA, G.R. No. 170672, August 14, 2009, First Division, Carpio, J.).

Relative thereto, it bears emphasis that the "plain view doctrine" may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures or to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant’s guilt. The doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. (VALEROSO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009, Third Divisio, Nachura, J.).

As the Supreme Court enunciated in People v. Cubcubin, Jr. (413 Phil 249 (2001), and  and People v. Leangsiri, 322 Phil. 226 (1996):

“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 came 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 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”(People v. Cubcubin, Jr. (413 Phil 249 (2001), and  and People v. Leangsiri, 322 Phil. 226 (1996) cited in VALEROSO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009, Third Division, Nachura, J.).