G.R. No. 85177
August 20, 1990
Facts
The RTC convicted appellants for the crime of illegal transportation of marijuana.
On October 30, 1986, the police officers established a checkpoint to check on vehicles proceeding to Baguio City because their Commanding Officer had been earlier tipped off by some confidential informers that the herein appellants would be transporting a large volume of marijuana to Baguio City. The informers went along with the police officers.
At about 2:00 o’clock in the early morning of November 1, the operatives intercepted a Sarao type jeep driven by appellants. Upon inspection, the jeep was found loaded with two (2) plastic sacks, one (1) jute sack, and three (3) big round tin cans which, when opened contained several bundles of suspected dried marijuana leaves. Thereafter, appellants were arrested and the suspected marijuana leaves were confiscated. The RTC convicted them with illegal transportation of marijuana. Hence, this appeal.
The main defense of the appellants is their claim that the prohibited drugs belonged to their two passengers who loaded them in the jeep as paying cargo without the appellants knowing that the cargo was marijuana. Their main concern was in going back to Baguio City and they saw no need to question their two passengers on why flowers were being kept in closed cans and sacks.
Moreover, appellants contended that the confiscated marijuana is inadmissible as evidence since the marijuana allegedly seized from them was a product of an unlawful search without a warrant.
Issue
Whether or not the search made by the police officers was unreasonable since the latter was not armed with a search warrant.
Held
No, the search was conducted within reasonable limits. It is considered as a valid search of moving vehicle and a valid search incidental to a lawful arrest.
Search of a Moving Vehicle
In the case of Valmonte de Villa, the Court held that checkpoints during abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits are valid. This is part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community.
In this case, There was information that a sizeable volume of marijuana will be transported to take advantage of the All Saints Day holiday wherein there will be a lot of people going to and from Baguio City. In fact, during the three day (October 30, 1986 to November 1, 1986) duration of the checkpoint, there were also other drug related arrests made aside from that of the two appellants.
Hence, the search is a valid search of a moving vehicle.
Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest
As a general rule, search warrant is needed before police officers can search and seize items. An exception to that is the search incidental to a lawful arrest which was embodied in Section 12 of Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
“SEC. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.”
In this case, appellants were caught in flagrante delicto since they were transporting the prohibited drugs at the time of their arrest. A crime was actually being committed.
Moreover, the case is different from People v. Amminudin. In this case there was no information as to the exact description of the vehicle and no definite time of the arrival. A jeepney cannot be equated with a passenger ship on the high seas. The ruling in the Aminnudin case, is not applicable.
Hence, the search is incidental to a lawful arrest.
Ruling
Appealed decision is affirmed. Guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.