SC: Evidence found during search after lawful arrest may be admissible even if not in plain view. Further, seizure of evidence in plain view does not apply if law enforcement officers are intentionally searching the person of the accused for evidence, as most objects that can be recovered are not in plain view.

The Supreme Court, in People vs. Bautista (G.R. No. 255749, October 15, 2025), has ruled that a search conducted after a lawful arrest may cover not only the arrested person but also items within their immediate control. Evidence found during such a search is admissible even if it was not in plain view. Thus:

“For these reasons, compliance with the plain view doctrine is not always required to justify a warrantless search and seizure. This is especially true if the search is limited to the person of the accused, where the seized items are usually hidden. Furthermore, seizure of evidence in plain view does not apply if law enforcement officers are intentionally searching the person of the accused for evidence, as most objects that can be recovered are not in plain view.”

In a decision written by Ricardo R. Rosario, the Court upheld Jeryl Bautista’s conviction for illegal possession of drugs under Republic Act No. 9165.

Bautista was arrested in a buy-bust operation after selling shabu to an undercover officer. A subsequent search uncovered three more sachets hidden inside a cellphone charger, along with other items.

The Court rejected Bautista’s claim that the additional drugs were inadmissible for not being in plain view, explaining that the search was valid as an incident of a lawful arrest. He was sentenced to up to 16 years in prison and fined PHP 300,000.