People vs. Sapla, GR No.

244045

Facts:

On January 10, 2014, at around 11:30 in the morning, an officer on duty at the Regional
Public Safety Battalion (RPSB) in Tabuk, Kalinga received a text message from an
informant (concerned citizen) that an individual will be transporting marijuana from
Kalinga to Isabela. PO2 Jim Mabiasan (not the officer who received the text message)
then relayed the information to the deputy commander who coordinated with the PDEA.
About 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day, a follow up information via text
message was received by the RPSB this time detailing the description of the drug
courier, to wit: male, wearing collared white shirt with green stripes, red ball cap, and
carrying a blue sack; he will be boarding a passenger jeepney bearing plate number
AYA 270 bound for Roxas, Isabela.
At around 1:20 o’clock in the afternoon, the jeepney arrived at the checkpoint and was
flagged down. The police officers stopped the jeepney and inside they saw the person
described in the text message they received. They approached said person and asked
him if the blue sack in front of him was his. The person answered yes. The police
officers then requested the person to open the blue sack. The person hesitated but he
eventually complied. The content of the blue sack was four bricks of marijuana. The
person was later identified as Jerry Sapla.
In court, Sapla denied the allegations as he claimed that when he boarded the jeep, he
did not have any sack with him; that the blue sack was only attributed as belonging to
him by the police. Sapla was convicted by the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the conviction and ruled that the informant’s tip was sufficient to engender probable
cause upon the minds of the police officers; that it was sufficient to conduct a
warrantless search and seizure.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an informant’s tip is sufficient to engender probable cause and police
officer may justify the search as consented search.

RULING:
No. the Supreme Court has always said that a mere informant’s tip is not sufficient to
engender probable cause. The police officer receiving the informant’s tip must rely on
his senses. The police officer must not adopt the suspicion initiated by another person.
The police officer, with his/her personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to
the suspicion of an illicit act and not merely rely on the information passed on to
him/her.
Law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of a tip. A tip is still hearsay no matter how
reliable it may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of any
other circumstance that will arouse suspicion. The Supreme Court noted that there were
two previous decisions (Pp. vs Maspil and Pp. vs Bagista) which ruled that a
confidential tip was sufficient to engender probable cause, however, the Supreme Court
in this case declared that these two cases are now being abandoned to settle the issue
once and for all.
The Supreme Court also found the text message to be double hearsay: (1) the person
who actually received the text message was not presented, and (2) the person who
received the text message merely relayed it to the officers who conducted the
warrantless search and seizure without the latter actually seeing/reading the actual text
message. Further, the text message was not preserved. It also appeared that the phone
which received the text message was not a government issued one – this belies the
claim of the officers that the message was received by their hotline.
Based on the testimony of the police officers, Sapla hesitated when he was requested
to open the blue sack. This only means that he did not give his consent and that his
compliance was vitiated by the presence of the police.
With all the foregoing, the search and seizure conducted was invalid and any evidence
obtained therefrom is inadmissible. Sapla was acquitted. The Supreme Court likewise
emphasized the need to adhere to strict standards set by the Constitution otherwise “A
battle waged against illegal drugs that tramples on the rights of the people is not a war
on drugs; it is a war against the people.” The Bill of Rights should never be sacrificed
on the altar of convenience. Otherwise, the malevolent mantle of the rule of men
dislodges the rule of law.

Accordingly, accused-appellant Sapla is acquitted and is ordered immediately released

from detention.