Delgado, Jerchiel Wilfred

2E

Rodel Luz Y Ong vs People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012
Justice Sereno

Facts:
Respondent PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza was a traffic enforcer assigned in Sub-station 1 of
Naga Police Station. At 3:00 am in the morning, the respondent saw the accused Rodel Ong
driving a motorcycle without a helmet. Respondent flagged down the accused for violating the
municipal ordinance which requires all motorcycle drivers to wear a helmet while riding their
motorcycle. The respondent invited the accused to come inside their substation, and he noticed
that while he was issuing a ticket, the accused was feeling uneasy and kept getting something
from his pocket. The respondent requested the accused to slowly remove all the contents of his
pocket. The content of the pockets were metal container, cellphones, scissor, and a swiss knife.
Curious of the metal container, the respondent asked the accused to spill out the contents of the
container. And, it revealed that 2 out of the 4 plastic sachets contained suspected shabu.

The RTC convicted the petitioner Ong of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The
prosecution laid sufficient evidence to show that he had been lawfully arrested for a traffic
violation and then subjected to a valid search.

Issue:
WON there was a lawful search and seizure.

Ruling:
No. The Court ruled that there was no lawful search and seizure because there was no
lawful arrest.
There was no valid or lawful arrest of the petitioner. Under Republic Act no. 4136 or the
Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing with traffic violation is
not the arrest of the offender but the confiscation of the driving license of the latter. Meanwhile,
Section 7 of the PNP operations manual provides that the officer shall immediately issue a
Traffic Citation Ticket and never indulge in any unnecessary conversation with the driver or any
of the vehicle’s occupant. Thus, it can not be said that there was an intention on the part of the
respondent to arrest the petitioner.
It also appears that, according to City Ordinance No. 98-012, which was violated by
petitioner, the failure to wear a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle is penalized by a fine
only. Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest need not be issued if the information or
charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine only. It may be stated as a corollary that
neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense. Assuming that petitioner was
deemed “arrested” upon being flagged down for a traffic violation and while waiting the issuance
of his ticket, then the requirements for a valid arrest were not complied with. This is because he
has not been read his Miranda rights, and he must be shown a warrant of arrest and be informed
the cause of his arrest.
 There being no valid arrest, the warrantless search that resulted from it was likewise
illegal. Warrantless search is allowed in the following instances: (i) a warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in "plain view;" (iii) search of a moving
vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) a "stop and frisk" search; and
(vii) exigent and emergency circumstances. None of the instances was found to be applicable in
the case at bar.
Neither was there a consented warrantless search. Consent to a search is not to be lightly
inferred, but shown by contents of his pocket. It must be voluntary in order to validate an
otherwise illegal search; that is, the consent must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given
and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. While the prosecution claims that petitioner
acceded to the instruction of PO3 Alteza, this alleged accession does not suffice to prove valid
and intelligent consent. In fact, the RTC found that petitioner was merely "told" to take out the
contents of his pocket.
Whether consent to the search was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined
from the totality of all the circumstances. Relevant to this determination are the following
characteristics of the person giving consent and the environment in which consent is given: (1)
the age of the defendant; (2) whether the defendant was in a public or a secluded location; (3)
whether the defendant objected to the search or passively looked on; (4) the education and
intelligence of the defendant; (5) the presence of coercive police procedures; (6) the defendant’s
belief that no incriminating evidence would be found; (7) the nature of the police questioning;
(8) the environment in which the questioning took place; and (9) the possibly vulnerable
subjective state of the person consenting. It is the State that has the burden of proving, by clear
and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained, and was freely and voluntarily
given. the morning, accompanied by several police officers. These circumstances weigh heavily
against a finding of valid consent to a warrantless search. In this case, all that was alleged was
that petitioner was alone at the police station at three in accompanied by several police officers.
These circumstances weigh heavily against a finding of valid consent to a warrantless search.
Neither does the search qualify under the "stop and frisk" rule. While the rule normally applies
when a police officer observes suspicious or unusual conduct, which may lead him to believe
that a criminal act may be afoot, the stop and frisk is merely a limited protective search of outer
clothing for weapons.
The foregoing considered, petitioner must be acquitted. While he may have failed to
object to the illegality of his arrest at the earliest opportunity, a waiver of an illegal warrantless
arrest does not, however, mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the
illegal warrantless arrest.