Edmund Sydeco y Sionzon v.

People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 202692, November 12, 2014
Velasco, Jr., J.:

FACTS:
The prosecution alleged that four police officers, manning a legal checkpoint, spotted a
swerving vehicle, driven by Sydeco who was under the influence of liquor. The police officers
flagged the vehicle down and asked Sydeco to alight from the vehicle. However, Sydeco denied
being drunk, and yelled at the officers. At that remark, they arrested Sydeco who put up a
resistance, and brought him to the hospital where he was examined and found to be positive of
alcohol breath.

On the other hand, Sydeco averred that he was signaled to stop by the police officers and
asked him to open the vehicles door and to alight from the vehicle for a body and vehicle search.
He refused and insisted on a plain view search only. By this remark, the policemen told him that
he was drunk, boxed him, and poked a gun at his head. The officers pulled Sydeco out of the
vehicle and brought him to the hospital where they succeeded in securing a medical certificate
depicting Sydeco as positive of alcohol breath.

Sydeco was charged for violation of Section 56(f) of RA 4136 or the Land Transportation
Code and another for violation of Article 151 of the RPC. Sydeco then filed a complaint-affidavit
against the police officers. MeTC found Sydeco guilty as charged. The RTC affirmed Sydecos
conviction. This was affirmed by the CA and upheld the presumption or regularity in the
performance of duties by the police officers.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the police officers performed their duties as required by law.

HELD:
No. at the time of Sydecos apprehension, or when he was signaled to stop, he has not
committed any crime or suspected of having committed one. Swerving may become punishable
when there is a sigh indicating that it is prohibited or where swerving partakes the nature of
reckless driving. To constitute the offense of reckless driving Sec. 48 of RA 4136, the act must be
something more than a mere negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle, and a willful and
wanton disregard of the consequences is required. Moreover, the area where Sydeco was
spotted was a no swerving or overtaking zone.

Furthermore, under Article 151 of the RPC, two elements of resistance and serious
disobedience must be present: (1) that a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the
performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender; and (2) that the offender
resists or seriously disobeys such person or his agent. Clearly, the police officers are persons in
authority or agents of a person in authority manning a legal checkpoint. But Sydecos act of
exercising ones right against unreasonable searches to be conducted cannot be equated to
disobedience nor resisting a lawful order. There is also nothing in RA 4136 that authorized the
checkpoint-manning policemen to order Sydeco to get out of the vehicle for a vehicle and body
search. And none of the police officers denied the allegation of Sydeco about being physically
hurt before being brought to the hospital. What the policemen claimed was that it took the three
of them to subdue Sydeco. Both actions were done in excess of their authority granted under RA
4136.