G.R. No. 244045
June 16, 2020
Case Principle
In a valid warrantless arrest of a moving vehicle, the search must only be limited to visual inspection. However, extensive search is permissible provided the police officers made it upon probable cause.
Moreover, valid search of a moving vehicle involved the search of a vehicle and not a particular person. Hence, establishing a checkpoint in order to seize items belonging to a particular person, upon reliable information, is not considered as a search of a moving vehicle.
Facts
At around 11:00 in the morning, the Regional Public Safety Battalion (RPSB) received a phone call from a concerned citizen, who informed the said office that a certain male individual would be transporting marijuana from Kalinga and into the Province of Isabela. At around 1:00 in the afternoon, the RPSB hotline received a text message which stated that the subject male person who would transport marijuana was wearing a collared white shirt with green stripes, red ball cap, and was carrying a blue sack on board a passenger jeepney, with plate number AYA 270 bound for Roxas, Isabela. Subsequently, a joint checkpoint was strategically organized at the Talaca command post.
The passenger jeepney then arrived at around 1:20 in the afternoon, wherein the police officers at the Talaca checkpoint flagged down the said vehicle and told its driver to park on the side of the road. The police officers approached the jeepney and saw appellant seated at the rear side of the vehicle. They asked appellant if he was the the owner of the blue sack in front of him, which the latter answered in the affirmative. The said officers then requested appellant to open the blue sack. After appellant opened the sack, the police officers saw four (4) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves, wrapped in newspaper and an old calendar. Subsequently, the police officers arrested appellant and informed him of the cause of his arrest and his constitutional rights in [the] Ilocano dialect. PO2. Thereafter, the police officers seized the four (4) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves and brought them to their office at the Talaca detachment for proper markings. After laboratory examination, it turned out that the seized items were marijuana.
The RTC and the CA ruled for the conviction of accused-appellant for violating Section 5 of R.A. 9165. The CA found that although the search and seizure conducted on accused-appellant Sapla was without a search warrant, the same was lawful as it was a valid warrantless search of a moving vehicle. The CA held that the essential requisite of probable cause was present, justifying the warrantless search and seizure. Hence, this appeal.
Issue
Whether there was a valid warrantless search and seizure of a moving vehicle.
Held
No.
Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are allowed in recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. Peace officers in such cases, however, are limited to routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection.
On the other hand, an extensive search of a vehicle is permissible, but only when “the officers made it upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains [an] item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.”
Moreover, search of a moving vehicle can only be countenanced if the target of the search is the vehicle and not a specific person. This is because “to extend to such breadth the scope of searches on moving vehicles would open the floodgates to unbridled warrantless searches which can be conducted by the mere expedient of waiting for the target person to ride a motor vehicle, setting up a checkpoint along the route of that vehicle, and then stopping such vehicle when it arrives at the checkpoint in order to search the target person.”
In this case, it cannot be seriously disputed that the target of the search conducted was not the passenger jeepney boarded by accused-appellant Sapla nor the cargo or contents of the said vehicle. The target of the search was the person who matched the description given by the person who called the RPSB Hotline, i.e., the person wearing a collared white shirt with green stripes, red ball cap, and carrying a blue sack.
Therefore, the search conducted in the instant case cannot be characterized as a search of a moving vehicle.