JInky Ann Ching

People vs Sapla

GR 244045

Facts:

That around 1:20 in the afternoon if January 10, 2014 at Talaca, Agbannawag, Tabuk City,
Kalinga and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, then said accused, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, control and custody four (4) bricks of
marijuana leaves, a dangerous [drug], with a total net weight of 3,9563.11 [1] grams and transport in
transit through a passenger [jeepney] with a Plate No. AYA 270 the said marijuana without the license,
permit or authority from any appropriate government entity or agency.

The next day, or on 15 January 2014,[accused-appellant sapla] was committed to the Bureau of
jail Management and penology (BJMP) at Tabuk City, Kalinga.

Upon his arraignment on 29 January 2014, [accused-appellant Sapla] pleaded “not guilty” to the
crime charged against him. In the court a quo’s Pre-Trial Order dated 11 March 2014, the Prosecution
and the Defense stipulated their respective legal issues to be resolved by the court a quo. Also, the
Prosecution identified and marked its pieces of evidence, while the Defense made no proposals nor pre-
mark[ed] any exhibits.

Issue:

Whether or not a police can conduct a warrantless intrusive search of a vehicle on the sole basis of an
unverified tip relayed by an anonymous informant.

Ruling:

No, as a rule According to Article III section 2 of the 1987 constitution, which reads:

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.

As held also in People vs Manago, explained that a variant of searching moving vehicles without a
warrant may entail the setting up of military or police checkpoints. The setting up of such checkpoints is
not illegal per se for as long as its necessity is justified by the exigencies of public order and conducted in
a way least intrusive to motorists.

Routine inspections do not give the authorities carte blanche discretion to conduct intrusive warrantless
searches in the absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive
search, as oppose to a mere routine inspection, “such as warrantless search has been held to be valid
only as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the
search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be
searched.”

Simply stated, a more extensive and intrusive search that goes beyond a mere visual search of
the vehicle necessities probable cause on the part of the apprehending officers.