G.R. No. 200370
June 7, 2017
Facts
At about 7:20 a.m. of January 15, 2008, a concerned citizen called a police radio operator, informing him that Veridiano was on the way to San Pablo City to obtain illegal drugs. With that, a checkpoint was set up. The police officers on the checkpoint personally knew Veridiano. They allowed some vehicles to pass through after checking that he was not on board. At around 10:00 a.m, they chanced upon Veridiano inside a passenger jeepney. They flagged down the jeepney and asked the passengers to disembark. The police officers instructed the passengers to raise their t-shirts to check for possible concealed weapons and to remove the contents of their pockets.
Thereafter, the police officers recovered from Veridiano a tea bag containing what appeared to be marijuana. Thereafter, the contents of the tea bag tested positive for marijuana.
The RTC convicted Veridiano. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Hence, this petition.
Petitioner argued that the tea bag containing marijuana leaves was seized in violation of his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. He asserts that his arrest was illegal.
Issues
- Whether or not the failure to timely object the illegal arrest constitutes a waiver also in the inadmissibility of evidence. (No)
- Whether or not there was a valid search of a moving vehicle. (No)
Held
First Issue
No. Failure to timely object to the illegality of an arrest does not preclude an accused from questioning the admissibility of evidence seized. The inadmissibility of the evidence is not affected when an accused fails to question the court’s jurisdiction over his or her person in a timely manner. Jurisdiction over the person of an accused and the constitutional inadmissibility of evidence are separate and mutually exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest.
Second Issue
One of the valid warrantless search and seizure is the search of a moving vehicle. The rules governing searches and seizures have been liberalized when the object of a search is a vehicle for practical purposes. Police officers cannot be expected to appear before a judge and apply for a search warrant when time is of the essence considering the efficiency of vehicles in facilitating transactions involving contraband or dangerous articles.
A checkpoint search is a variant of a search of a moving vehicle. They are allowed in exceptional circumstances to protect the lives of individuals and ensure their safety. They are also sanctioned in cases where the government’s survival is in danger.
Checkpoint searches are valid for as long as the (1) vehicle was neither searched; (2) the occupants were not subjected to a body search; and (3) the inspection of the vehicle was limited to a visual search. Thus, a search where an “officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds, or simply looks into a vehicle, or flashes a light therein” is reasonable.
However, an extensive search may be conducted on a vehicle at a checkpoint when law enforcers have probable cause to believe that the vehicle’s passengers committed a crime or when the vehicle contains instruments of an offense.
Moreover, law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of confidential or tipped information. A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arouse suspicion. In other words, reasonable information should be coupled by overt acts of the accused which will arouse suspicion.
In the present case, the extensive search conducted by the police officers exceeded the allowable limits of warrantless searches. They had no probable cause to believe that the accused violated any law except for the tip they received. They did not observe any peculiar activity from the accused that may either arouse their suspicion or verify the tip. Moreover, the search was flawed at its inception since the checkpoint was set up to target the arrest of the accused.
Therefore, there was no valid warrantless search of a moving vehicle.
Ruling
Accused was acquitted.