Crimpro Cases 3

8/9/2019 Crimpro Cases 3

1/98

G.R. No. L-32409 February 27, 1971

BACHE & CO. (PHIL.), INC. and FREDERICK E. EGGER!AN, petitioners ,

"#.

HON. $%DGE I ENCIO !. R%I', !I AEL P. ERA, n # *a+a* a#Co ## on/ o1

In / na R/"/n /, AR %RO LOGRONIO, RODOLFO DE LEON, GAINO ELA 5%E',!I!IR DELLO A, NICANOR ALCORDO, / a , respondents .

D E C I I O N

VILLAMOR, J:

This is an original action of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction. In their petition ache ! "o. #$hil.%, Inc., acorporation duly organi&ed and e'isting under the laws of the $hilippines, and its $resident,Frederic( ). *eggerman, pray this "ourt to declare null and +oid *earch arrant -o. 2 / 70issued by respondent udge on February 2 , 19703 to order respondents to desist fromenforcing the same and4or (eeping the documents, papers and effects sei&ed by +irtue thereof,as well as from enforcing the ta' assessments on petitioner corporation alleged by petitioners toha+e been made on the basis of the said documents, papersand effects, and to order the returnof the latter to petitioners. e ga+e due course to the petition but did not issue the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for therein.

The pertinent facts of this case, as gathered from record, are as follows5

6n February 2 , 1970, respondent /isael $. 8era, "ommissioner of Internal e+enue, wrote aletter addressed to respondent udge 8i+encio /. ui& re:uesting the issuance of a searchwarrant against petitioners for +iolation of *ection ;#a% of the -ational Internal e+enue "ode,in relation to all other pertinent pro+isions thereof, particularly *ections


2/98

The e'amination of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, re:uired by @rt. III, *ec.1, par. eon% and his witness #respondent >ogronio%. hile it is true thatthe complainantAs application for search warrant and the witnessA printed form deposition weresubscribed and sworn to before respondent udge, the latter did not as( either of the two any:uestion the answer to which could possibly be the basis for determining whether or not therewas probable cause against herein petitioners. Indeed, the participants seem to ha+e attachedso little significance to the matter that notes of the proceedings before respondent udge werenot e+en ta(en. @t this juncture it may be well to recall the salient facts. The transcript of stenographic notes #pp. ;1 7;, @pril 1, 1970, @nne' 2 of the $etition% ta(en at the hearing of this case in the court below shows that per instruction of respondent udge, /r. )leodoro 8.Bon&ales, *pecial ?eputy "ler( of "ourt, too( the depositions of the complainant and hiswitness, and that stenographic notes thereof were ta(en by /rs. Baspar. @t that time respondentudge was at the sala hearing a case. @fter respondent udge was through with the hearing,?eputy "ler( Bon&ales, stenographer Baspar, complainant ?e >eon and witness >ogronio wentto respondent udgeAs chamber and informed the udge that they had finished the depositions.espondent udge then re:uested the stenographer to read to him her stenographic notes.*pecial ?eputy "ler( Bon&ales testified as follows5

C@ @nd after finishing reading the stenographic notes, the Honorable udge re:uested or instructed them, re:uested /r. >ogronio to raise his hand and warned him if his deposition will

be found to be false and without legal basis, he can be charged criminally for perjury. TheHonorable "ourt told /r. >ogronio whether he affirms the facts contained in his deposition andthe affida+it e'ecuted before /r. odolfo de >eon.

C @nd thereafter

C@ @nd thereafter, he signed the deposition of /r. >ogronio.

C ho is this he

C@ The Honorable udge.

C The deposition or the affida+it

C@ The affida+it, Jour Honor.D

Thereafter, respondent udge signed the search warrant.

The participation of respondent udge in the proceedings which led to the issuance of *earcharrant -o. 2 / 70 was thus limited to listening to the stenographerAs readings of her notes, toa few words of warning against the commission of perjury, and to administering the oath to thecomplainant and his witness. This cannot be consider a personal e'amination. If there was ane'amination at all of the complainant and his witness, it was the one conducted by the ?eputy"ler( of "ourt. ut, as stated, the "onstitution and the rules re:uire a personal e'amination bythe judge. It was precisely on account of the intention of the delegates to the "onstitutional"on+ention to ma(e it a duty of the issuing judge to personally e'amine the complainant and hiswitnesses that the :uestion of how much time would be consumed by the judge in e'amining


3/98

them came up before the "on+ention, as can be seen from the record of the proceedings :uotedabo+e. The reading of the stenographic notes to respondent udge did not constitute sufficientcompliance with the constitutional mandate and the rule3 for by that manner respondent udgedid not ha+e the opportunity to obser+e the demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and topropound initial and follow up :uestions which the judicial mind, on account of its training, was inthe best position to concei+e. These were important in arri+ing at a sound inference on the allimportant :uestion of whether or not there was probable cause.

2. The search warrant was issued for more than one specific offense.

*earch arrant -o. 2 / 70 was issued for CK+Liolation of *ec. ;#a% of the -ational Internale+enue "ode in relation to all other pertinent pro+isions thereof particularly *ecs.


4/98

all concei+able records of petitioner corporation, which, if sei&ed, could possibly render itsbusiness inoperati+e.

In Gy Oheytin, et al. +s. 8illareal, etc., et al., 2 $hil. ==;, =9;, this "ourt had occasion to e'plainthe purpose of the re:uirement that the warrant should particularly describe the place to besearched and the things to be sei&ed, to wit5

C. . . oth the ones >aw #sec. inn +. Gnited *tates, 1;< ".".@. 70, 2 1 Fed. 7;, =0, it was thought that a different ruleapplied to a corporation, the ground that it was not pri+ileged from producing its boo(s andpapers. ut the rights of a corporation against unlawful search and sei&ure are to be protectede+en if the same result might ha+e been achie+ed in a lawful way.D #*il+erthorne >umber "ompany, et al. +. Gnited *tates of @merica, 2 1 G.*. . ed.


5/98

mentioned in @nne' CBD of the present petition, as well as other assessments based on thedocuments, papers and effects sei&ed under the search warrant herein nullified, and from usingthe same against petitioners in any criminal or other proceeding. -o pronouncement as to costs.

G.R. No. 604977 $ n/ 67, 6998

!% ANG L%!BER, INC., petitioner,+s.HON. CO%R OF APPEAL , HON. F%LGENCIO . FAC ORAN, $R., /* / a , D/+a /no1 En" on /n and Na a R/#o */# (DENR), and A . INCEN A. ROBLE , C /1,+/* a A* on# and In"/# :a on# D " # on, DENR, respondents.

DA IDE, $R., J.: p

The first and third case, B. . -o. 10 9== and B. . -o. 12una *treet,Tondo, /anila, and with a >umberyard at Fortune *treet, Fortune 8illage, $aseo de las,8alen&uela, /etro /anila, was duly registered as a lumber dealer with the ureau of Forest?e+elopment # F?% under "ertificate of egistration -o. - ? 092 90 0;9. Its permit assuch was to e'pire on 2 *eptember 1990.

espondent *ecretary Fulgencio *. Factoran, r., and respondent @tty. 8incent @. obles were,during all the time material to these cases, the *ecretary of the ?epartment of )n+ironment and-atural esources #?)- % and the "hief of the *pecial @ctions and In+estigation ?i+ision#*@I?% of the ?)- , respecti+ely.

The material operati+e facts are as follows5

6n 1 @pril 1990, acting on an information that a huge stoc(pile of narra flitches, shorts, andslabs were seen inside the lumberyard of the petitioner in 8alen&uela, /etro /anila, the *@I?organi&ed a team of foresters and policemen and sent it to conduct sur+eillance at the saidlumberyard. In the course thereof, the team members saw coming out from the lumberyard thepetitionerNs truc(, with $late -o. ""O


6/98

6n 11 @pril 1990, obles submitted his memorandum report recommending to *ecretaryFactoran the following5

1. *uspension and subse:uent cancellation of the lumber ?ealerNs $ermit of /ustang >umber, Inc. for operating an unregistered lumberyard and resawmill and possession of @lmaciga >umber #a banned specie% without there:uired documents3

2. "onfiscation of the lumber sei&ed at the /ustang >umberyard including

the truc( with $late -o. ""O


7/98

6n 7 une 1991, ranch < of the T" of /anila rendered its decision 6; in the FI *T "I8I>"@*), the dispositi+e portion of which reads5

H) )F6 ), judgment in this case is rendered as follows5

1. The 6rder of espondent *ecretary of the ?)- , the HonorableFulgencio *. Factoran, r., dated < /ay 1990 ordering the confiscation infa+or of the Bo+ernment the appro'imately auan,supa, end almaciga >umber, shorts and stic(s, found inside and sei&ed from

the >umberyard of the petitioner at Fortune ?ri+e, Fortune 8illage, $aseo delas, 8alen&uela, /etro /anila, on @pril , 1990 #)'hibit 10%, is hereby setaside and +acated, and instead the respondents are re:uired to report andbring to the Hon. @driano 6sorio, )'ecuti+e udge, egional Trial "ourt,-" , 8alen&uela, /etro /anila, the said auan, supaand almaciga >umber, shorts and stic(s, to be dealt with as directed by >aw3

2. The respondents are re:uired to initiate and prosecute the appropriateaction before the proper court regarding the >auan and almaciga lumber ofassorted si&es and dimensions >oaded in petitionerNs truc( bearing $late-o. ""O


8/98

The petitionerNs motion to reconsider the said decision was denied by the "ourt of @ppeals in itsresolution of < /arch 1992. 28 Hence, the petitioner came to this "ourt by way of a petition forre+iew on certiorari in $ .R . No% )*./00 , which was filed on 2 /ay 1992. 2

No. 77-63;3A : /d No".


11/98

#a% If there were a constitutional +iolation in this case, it occurred solely in /e'ico, since a Fourth @mendment +iolation is fully accomplished at the time of an unreasonable go+ernmentalintrusion whether or not the e+idence sei&ed is sought for use in a criminal trial. Thus, the Fourth

@mendment functions differently from the Fifth @mendment, whose pri+ilege againstselfincrimination is a fundamental trial right of criminal defendants. $. 9 G. *. 2; .

#b% The Fourth @mendment phrase Pthe peopleP seems to be a term of art used in select parts ofthe "onstitution, and contrasts with the words PpersonP and PaccusedP used in @rticles of theFifth and *i'th @mendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that Pthe peopleP

$age 9 G. *. 2;0

refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who ha+e otherwisede+eloped sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.$p. 9 G. *. 2; 2;;.

#c% The Fourth @mendmentNs drafting history shows that its purpose was to protect the people ofthe Gnited *tates against arbitrary action by their own Bo+ernment, and not to restrain theFederal Bo+ernmentNs actions against aliens outside Gnited *tates territory. -or is there anyindication that the @mendment was understood by the FramersN contemporaries to apply toGnited *tates acti+ities directed against aliens in foreign territory or in international waters.$p. 9 G. *. 2;; 2;=.

#d% The +iew that e+ery constitutional pro+ision applies where+er the Bo+ernment e'ercises its

power is contrary to this "ourtNs decisions in the Ins +ar Cases, which held that not allconstitutional pro+isions apply to go+ernmental acti+ity e+en in territories where the Gnited*tates has so+ereign power. See, e%-%, =a+"ac !% &orto Rico, 2 = G. *. 29= . Indeed, the claimthat e'traterritorial aliens are entitled to rights under the Fifth @mendment which spea(s in therelati+ely uni+ersal term of PpersonP has been emphatically rejected. Jo5nson !%Eisentra-er, I@,and O)--)?J, ., joined. O)--)?J, ., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 9 G. *. 27 .*T)8)-*, ., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 9 G. *. 279 . )--@-, .,filed a dissenting opinion, in which /@ *H@>>, ., joined, post, p. 9 G. *. 279 . >@"O/G-,., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 9 G. *. 297 .

"hief ustice )H- GI*T deli+ered the opinion of the "ourt.

The :uestion presented by this case is whether the Fourth @mendment applies to the searchand sei&ure by Gnited *tates agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien andlocated in a foreign country. e hold that it does not.

$age 9 G. *. 2;2

espondent ene /artin 8erdugo Gr:uide& is a citi&en and resident of /e'ico. He is belie+edby the Gnited *tates ?rug )nforcement @gency #?)@% to be one of the leaders of a large and+iolent organi&ation in /e'ico that smuggles narcotics into the Gnited *tates. ased on acomplaint charging respondent with +arious narcotics related offenses, the Bo+ernmentobtained a warrant for his arrest on @ugust


12/98

The ?istrict "ourt granted respondentNs motion to suppress e+idence sei&ed during thesearches, concluding that the Fourth @mendment applied to the searches and that the ?)@agents had failed to justify searching respondentNs premises without a warrant. @ di+ided panelof the "ourt of @ppeals for the -inth "ircuit affirmed. = ; F.2d 121 #19==%. It cited this "ourtNsdecision in Reid !% Co!ert ,< G. *. 1 #19 7%, which held that @merican citi&ens tried by Gnited*tates military authorities in a foreign country were entitled to the protections of the Fifth and*i'th @mendments, and concluded that PKtLhe "onstitution imposes substanti+e constraints onthe federal go+ernment, e+en when it operates abroad.P = ; F.2d at 121=. elying on ourdecision in INS !% Lope"#Mendo"a , ;= G. *. 10


13/98

their own Bo+ernment3 it was ne+er suggested that the pro+ision was intended to restrain theactions of the Federal Bo+ernment against aliens outside of the Gnited *tates territory.

$age 9 G. *. 2;7

There is li(ewise no indication that the Fourth @mendment was understood by contemporaries of the Framers to apply to acti+ities of the Gnited *tates directed against aliens in foreign territoryor in international waters. 6nly se+en years after the ratification of the @mendment, Frenchinterference with @merican commercial +essels engaged in neutral trade triggered what came tobe (nown as the Pundeclared warP with France. In an @ct to Pprotect the "ommerce of the Gnited

*tatesP in 179=, "ongress authori&ed $resident @dams to

Pinstruct the commanders of the public armed +essels which are, or which shall be employed inthe ser+ice of the Gnited *tates, to subdue, sei&e and ta(e any armed French +essel, whichshall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the Gnited *tates, or elsewhere, on the highseas.P

Q 1 of @n @ct Further to $rotect the "ommerce of the Gnited *tates, "h. ;=, 1 *tat. 7=. Thispublic na+al force consisted of only +essels, so "ongress also ga+e the $resident power togrant to the owners of pri+ate armed ships and +essels of the Gnited *tates Pspecialcommissions,P which would allow them

Pthe same license and authority for the subduing, sei&ing and capturing any armed French+essel, and for the recapture of the +essels, goods and effects of the people of the Gnited

*tates, as the public armed +essels of the Gnited *tates may by law ha+e.P

Q 2, 1 *tat. 793 see G.*. "onst., @rt. I, Q =, cl. 11 #"ongress has power to grant letters ofmar:ue and reprisal%. Gnder the latter pro+ision,


14/98

Id% at < G. *. ; #emphasis added3 footnote omitted%. espondent urges that we interpret thisdiscussion to mean that federal officials are constrained by the Fourth @mendment where+er andagainst whome+er they act. ut the holding of Reid stands for no such sweeping proposition5 itdecided that Gnited *tates citi&ens stationed abroad could in+o(e the protection of the Fifth and*i'th @mendments. The concurring opinions by ustices Fran(furter and Harlan in eid resol+edthe case on much narrower grounds than the plurality and declined e+en to hold that Gnited*tates citi&ens were entitled to the full range of constitutional protections in all o+erseas criminalprosecutions. See id% at < G. *. 7 #Harlan, ., concurring in result% #PI agree with my brotherF @-OFG T) that . . . we ha+e before us a :uestion analogous, ultimately, to issues of dueprocess3 one can say, in fact, that the :uestion of which specific safeguards of the "onstitutionare appropriately to be applied in a particular conte't o+erseas can be reduced to the issue ofwhat process is d e@ a defendant in t5e partic +ar circ stances of a partic +ar case B% Sincerespondent is not a ;nited States citi"en, 5e can deri!e no co fort fro t5e Reid 5o+din-%

8erdugo Gr:uide& also relies on a series of cases in which we ha+e held that aliens enjoycertain constitutional rights.

$age 9 G. *. 271

See, e%-%, &+9+er !% Doe, 7 G. *. 202 , 7 G. *. 211 212 #19=2% #illegal aliens protected by):ual $rotection "lause%3 >3on-


15/98

s pra, .*1 ;%S% at .*1 ;% S% 1/4 B, b t t5e $o!ern ent 3o +d sti++ be faced 3it5 case#b9#casead dications concernin- t5e a!ai+abi+it9 of s c5 an action% And e!en 3ere =i!ens dee ed35o++9 inapp+icab+e in cases of forei-n acti!it9, t5at 3o +d not ob!iate t5e prob+e s attendin- t5eapp+ication of t5e Fo rt5 A end ent abroad to a+iens% T5e Me bers of t5e E8ec ti!e andLe-is+ati!e =ranc5es are s3orn to p5o+d t5e Constit tion, and t5e9 pres ab+9 desire to fo++o3its co ands% = t t5e Co rt of Appea+s@ -+oba+ !ie3 of its app+icabi+it9 3o +d p+ n-e t5e into asea of ncertaint9 as to 35at i-5t be reasonab+e in t5e 3a9 of searc5es and sei" rescond cted abroad% Indeed, t5e Co rt of Appea+s 5e+d t5at absent e8i-ent circ stances, ;nitedStates a-ents co +d not effect a searc5 or sei" re for +a3 enforce ent p rposes in a forei-nco ntr9 3it5o t first obtainin- a 3arrant ## 35ic5 3o +d be a dead +etter o tside t5e ;nitedStates ## fro a a-istrate in t5is co ntr9% E!en if no 3arrant 3ere re ired, A erican a-ents3o +d 5a!e to artic +ate specific facts -i!in- t5e probab+e ca se to nderta?e a searc5 orsei" re if t5e9 3is5ed to co p+9 3it5 t5e Fo rt5 A end ent as concei!ed b9 t5e Co rt of

Appea+s%

e thin( that the te't of the Fourth @mendment, its history, and our cases discussing theapplication of the "onstitution to aliens and e'traterritorially re:uire rejection of respondentNsclaim. @t the time of the search, he was a citi&en and resident of /e'ico with no +oluntaryattachment to the

$age 9 G. *. 27

Gnited *tates, and the place searched was located in /e'ico. Gnder these circumstances, theFourth @mendment has no application.

For better or for worse, we li+e in a world of nation states in which our Bo+ernment must be ableto PfunctioKnL effecti+ely in the company of so+ereign nations.P &ere" !% =ro3ne++ ,< ; G. *.

, < ; G. *. 7 #19 =%. *ome who +iolate our laws may li+e outside our borders under a regime:uite different from that which obtains in this country. *ituations threatening to important

@merican interests may arise half way around the globe, situations which in the +iew of thepolitical branches of our Bo+ernment re:uire an @merican response with armed force. If thereare to be restrictions on searches and sei&ures which occur incident to such @merican action,they must be imposed by the political branches through diplomatic understanding, treaty, orlegislation.

The judgment of the "ourt of @ppeals is accordingly

Re!ersed%

G.R. No. 62696< !a * 62, 699agasca "id#hereafter "I?%, as "hief of $olice of the acnotan $olice *tation, of >a Gnion began patrollingthe acnotan coastline with his officers. hile monitoring the coastal area of arangay ulala on29 /arch 199 , he intercepted a radio call at around 125 p.m. from arangay "aptain uan

@lmoite #hereafter @>/6IT)% of arangay Tammocalao re:uesting police assistance regardingan unfamiliar speedboat the latter had spotted. @ccording to @>/6IT), the +essel loo(eddifferent from the boats ordinarily used by fisherfol( of the area and was poised to doc( atTammocalao shores. "I? and si' of his men led by his "hief In+estigator, *$61 eynoso adua#hereafter @?G@%, proceeded forthwith to Tammocalao beach and there conferred with

@>/6IT). "I? then obser+ed that the speedboat ferried a lone male passenger. @s it wasroutine for "I? to deploy his men in strategic places when dealing with similar situations, heordered his men to ta(e up positions thirty meters from the coastline. hen the speedboat

landed, the male passenger alighted, and using both hands, carried what appeared amulticolored strawbag. He then wal(ed towards the road. y this time, @>/6IT), "I? and


23/98

@?G@, the latter two conspicuous in their uniform and issued side arms, became suspicious ofthe man as he suddenly changed direction and bro(e into a run upon seeing the approachingofficers. @?G@, howe+er, pre+ented the man from fleeing by holding on to his right arm.

@lthough "I? introduced themsel+es as police officers, the man appeared impassi+e. *pea(ingin )nglish, "I? then re:uested the man to open his bag, but he seem not to understand. "I?thus tried spea(ing Tagalog, then Ilocano, but still to no a+ail. "I? then resorted to what hetermed Psign language3P he motioned with his hands for the man to open the bag. This time, theman apparently understood and acceded to the re:uest. @ search of the bag yielded se+eraltransparent plastic pac(ets containing yellowish crystalline substances. "I? then gestured to theman to close the bag, which he did. @s "I? wished to proceed to the police station, he signaled

the man to follow, but the latter did not to comprehend. Hence, "I? placed his arm around theshoulders of the man and escorted the latter to the police head:uarters.

@t the police station, "I? surmised, after ha+ing obser+ed the facial features of the man, that hewas probably Taiwanese. "I? then Precited and informed the man of his constitutional rightsP toremain silent, to ha+e the assistance of a counsel, etc . )liciting no response from the man, "I?ordered his men to find a resident of the area who spo(e "hinese to act as an enterpreter. In themeantime, @?G@ opened the bag and counted twenty nine #29% plastic pac(ets containingyellowish crystalline substance which he and "I? suspected was shabu. The interpreter, /r. Bo$ing Buan, finally arri+ed, through whom the man was Papprised of his constitutional rights.P Thepolice authorities were satisfied that the man and the interpreter perfectly understood each other despite their uncertainty as to what language was spo(en. ut when the policemen as(ed theman se+eral :uestions, he retreated to his obstinate reticence and merely showed his I.?. withthe name "hua Ho *an printed thereon. "HG@Ns bag and its contents were sent to the $-$"rime >aboratory at "amp ?iego *ilang, "arlatan, *an Fernando, >a Gnion for laboratorye'amination. In the meantime, "HG@ was detained at the acnotan $olice *tation. )H3p5i)%n t

>ater that same day, $olice "hief Inspector and Forensic "hemist Theresa @nn ugayong "id of the $hilippine -ational $olice, egion I, recei+ed a letter re:uest 3 from "I? S incidentally herhusband S to conduct a laboratory e'amination of twenty nine #29% plastic pac(ets placedinside a multicolored strawbag. In her "hemistry eport -o. ? 02 9 , 4 she stated that her:ualitati+e e'amination established the contents of the plastic pac(ets, weighing 2=.7 (ilos, to bepositi+e of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug.

"HG@ was initially charged with illegal possession of methaphetamine hydrochloride before theT" which doc(eted the case as "riminal "ase -o. 0a Gnion, that the facts of the case

could support an indictment for illegal transport of a r egulated drug, the information wassubse:uently amended to allege that "HG@ Pwillfully, unlawfully and feloniously transpor#ted%2=.7 (ilos of KmLethamphetamine KhLydrochloride #shabu% without the necessary permit orauthority to transport the sameP in +iolation of *ection 1 , @rticle III of .@. ; 2 as amended by.@. 7; 9.

@t his arraignment on


24/98

>ast to testify was @rsenio " @IB, a farmer and resident of Tammocalao who narrated that hewas standing with "HG@ on the beach when two men and a lady arri+ed. They were about to geta bag situated near "HG@ when they detected the arri+al of the local police. They :uic(lydisappeared. " @IB then noticed @>/6IT) and $@ 6-B at the beach but not "I?.

In a decision promulgated on 10 February 1997, the T" found that the prosecutionsuccessfully discharged its burden of pro+ing that "HG@ transported 2=.7 (ilos ofmethamphetamine hydrochloride without legal authority to do so. In+o(ing &eop+e !%Ta-+iben ; as authority, the T" characteri&ed the search as incidental to a +alid in f+a-rantede+icto arrest, hence it allowed the admission of the methamphetamine hydrochloride as corp sde+icti . The T" also noted the futility of informing "HG@ of his constitutional rights to remainsilent, and to ha+e competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice,considering the language barrier and the obser+ation that such irregularity was Prectified whenaccused was duly arraigned and . . . #afterwards% participated in the trial of this case.P The T"then disregarded the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecutionwitnesses as these referred to minor details which did not impair the credibility of the witnessesor tarnish the credence conferred on the testimonies thus deli+ered.

The T" also belie+ed that "HG@ conspired not only with his alleged employer 6-B and the"aptain of the < tonner +essel in the illegal trade of prohibited drugs on $hilippine shores, butwith se+eral other members of an organi&ed syndicate bent on perpetrating said illicit traffic.*uch predilection was plainly e+ident in the dispositi+e portion, to wit5

H) )F6 ), and in +iew of all the foregoing, as pro+en and establishedby con+incing and satisfactory e+idence that the accused had conspired andacted in concert with one "ho "hu ong, not to mention "hen Ho Fa, the*(ipper of the < tonner ship they used in coming to the "ountry from"hina and Taiwan, this "ourt finds the accused "hua Ho *an R Tsay Ho*an guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of 8iolation of *ec. 1 ,

@rt. III of .@. -o. ; 2 , as amended by .@. -o. 7;9 as charged in theInformation, and considering the pro+isions of *ec. 20 of .@. -o. 7; 9 thatthe ma'imum penalty shall be imposed if the :uantitysold4possessed4transported is P200 grams or moreP in the case of *habu,and considering, further that the :uantity in+ol+ed in this case is 2=.7(ilograms which is far beyond the weight ceiling specified in said @ct,coupled with the findings of conspiracy or that accused is a member of anorgani&ed syndicated crime group, this "ourt, ha+ing no other recourse but

to impose the ma'imum penalty to accused, this "ourt hereby sentencesthe said accused "hua Ho *an R Tsay Ho *an to die by lethal injection3 topay a fine of Ten /illion $esos #$10,000,000.00%3 and to pay the costs.

The "ourt hereby orders ?irector icareido K sic L *armiento of the $hilippine-ational $olice to immediately form an in+estigating "ommittee to becomposed by K sic L men of unimpeachable integrity, who will conduct ane'hausti+e in+estigation regarding this case to determine whether there wasnegligence or conspiracy in the escape of "ho "hu ong and the two #2% orthree #a Gnion, and attempted to ta(e the remaining bagfrom accused, as well as the whereabouts of the other bag3 and to furnishthis "ourt a copy of the report4result of the said in+estigation in order toshow compliance herewith si'ty #;0% days from receipt hereof.

The confiscated 2=.7 (ilograms of /ethaphetamine Hydrochloride or *habuis ordered turned o+er immediately to the ?angerous ?rugs oard fordestruction in accordance with the law.

The fiberglass boat with its motor engine is hereby ordered confiscated infa+or of the go+ernment and to be turned o+er to the $hilippine -ational$olice, >a Gnion "ommand, for use in their antay ?agat operationsagainst all illegal seaborne acti+ities.

*6 6 ?) )?. 8

efore this "ourt, "HG@ posits that the T" erred in #1% admitting as competent e+idence the29 plastic pac(ets of methamphetamine hydrochloride since they were indubitably Pforbiddenfruits3P #2% granting weight and credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses despiteglaring inconsistencies on material points3 and in #


25/98

This "ourt is therefore tas(ed to determine whether the warrantless arrest, search and sei&ureconducted under the facts of the case at bar constitute a +alid e'emption from the warrantre:uirement. )'pectedly and :uite understandably, the prosecution and the defense paintede'tremely di+ergent +ersions of the incident. ut this "ourt is certain that "HG@ was arrestedand his bag searched without the benefit of a warrant.

In cases of in fra-rante de+icto, arrests, a peace officer or a pri+ate person may without awarrant, arrest a person, when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, isactually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The arresting officer, therefore, mustha+e personal (nowledge of such facts 64 or as recent case law 6; ad+erts to, personal (nowledgeof facts or circumstances con+incingly indicati+e or constituti+e of probable cause. The termprobable cause had been understood to mean a reasonable ground of suspicion supported bycircumstances sufficiently strong in themsel+es to warrant a cautious manNs belief that theperson accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. 68 *pecifically with respect toarrests, it is such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudentman to belie+e that an offense has been committed by the person sought to bearrested. 6< In &eop+e !% Monti++a, 67 the "ourt ac(nowledged that Pthe e+identiary measure for thepropriety of filing criminal charges, and correlati+ely, for effecting warrantless arrest, has beenreduced and liberali&ed.P -oting that the pre+ious statutory and jurisprudential e+identiarystandard was P pri a facie e+idenceP and that it had been dubiously e:uated with probablecause, the "ourt e'plained5

KFLelicitously, those problems and confusing concepts #referring to pri afacie e+idence and probable cause% were clarified and set aright, at least onthe issue under discussion, by the 19= amendment of the ules of "ourtwhich pro+ides in ule 112 thereof that the :uantum of e+idence re:uired inpreliminary in+estigation is such e+idence as suffices to Pengender as wellfounded beliefP as to the fact of the commission of the crime and therespondentNs probable guilt thereof. It has the same meaning as the relatedphraseology used in other parts of the same ule, that is, that thein+estigating fiscal Pfinds cause to hold the respondent for trial,P or where Paprobable cause e'ists.P It should, therefore, be in that sense, wherein theright to effect a warrantless arrest should be considered as legallyauthori&ed.P #emphasis supplied% 69

Buided by these principles, this "ourt finds that there are no facts on record reasonablysuggesti+e or demonstrati+e of "HG@Ns participation in on going criminal enterprise that could

ha+e spurred police officers from conducting the obtrusi+e search. The T" ne+er too( thepains of pointing to such facts, but predicated mainly its decision on the finding that wasPaccused was caught red handed carrying the bagful of KsLhabu when apprehended.P In short,there is no probable cause. @t least in &eop+e !% Tan-+iben , the "ourt agreed with the lowercourtNs finding that compelling reasons # e%-%, accused was acting suspiciously, on the spotidentification by an informant that accused was transporting prohibiti+e drug, and the urgency ofthe situation% constituti+e of probable cause impelled police officers from effecting an in f+a-rantede+icto arrest. In the case at bar, the *olicitor Beneral proposes that the following details aresuggesti+e of probable cause S persistent reports of rampant smuggling of firearm and othercontraband articles, "HG@Ns watercraft differing in appearance from the usual fishing boats thatcommonly cruise o+er the acnotan seas, "HG@Ns illegal entry into the $hilippines #he lac(edthe necessary tra+el documents or +isa%, "HG@Ns suspicious beha+ior, i .e . he attempted to fleewhen he saw the police authorities, and the apparent ease by which "HG@ can return to andna+igate his speedboat with immediate dispatch towards the high seas, beyond the reach of

$hilippine laws.

This "ourt, howe+er, finds that these do not constitute Pprobable cause.P -one of the telltaleclues, e .- ., bag or pac(age emanating the pungent odor of marijuana or other prohibiteddrug, 20 confidential report and4or positi+e identification by informers of courier#s% of prohibiteddrug and4or the time and place where they will transport4deli+er the same, 26 suspiciousdemeanor or beha+ior 22 and suspicious bulge in the waist 23 S accepted by this "ourt assufficient to justify a warrantless arrest e'ists in this case. There was no classified informationthat a foreigner would disembar( at Tammocalao beach bearing prohibited drug on the date in:uestion. "HG@ was not identified as a drug courier by a police informer or agent. The fact thatthe +essel that ferried him to shore bore no resemblance to the fishing boats of the area did notautomatically mar( him as in the process of perpetrating an offense. @nd despite claims by "I?

and @?G@ that "HG@ attempted to flee, @>/6IT) testified that the l atter was merely wal(ingand obli+ious to any attempt at con+ersation when the officers approached him. This castserious doubt on the truthfulness of the claim, thus5

5 How far were you when the accused put the bag on his sholder

@5 e were then +ery near him about three meters away from the male person carrying the bag.

5 To what direction was he facing when he put the bag on his shoulder

@5 To the east direction.

5 In relation to you, where were you.

@5 ith the company of *gt. eynoso and /aj. "id we approached the accused and when /aj."id went near him, he spo(e in Tagalong, )nglish and Ilocano which accused did not understandbecause he did not respond.

5 hen /aj. "id was tal(ing, what was the accused doing at that time

@5 He was wal(ing.

5 To what direction he was wal(ing

@5 He was wal(ing to the east direction. # sic %

5 He was wal(ing away from you or going near you

@5 He was going away from us. That is why *gt. eynoso held the right arm of the accused.

5 as *gt. adua able to hold the right arm of the accused

@5 Jes sir and he stopped. 24

True, "HG@ entered $hilippine territory without a +isa. This was not ob+ious to the police. utgossamer to the officersN sense perception and +iew were "HG@ disembar(ing from a

speedboat, "HG@ wal(ing casually towards the road, and "HG@ carrying a multicoloredstrawbag. These acts did not con+ey any impression that he illegally entered $hilippine shores.


26/98

-either were these o+ert manifestations of an ongoing felonious acti+ity nor of "HG@Ns criminalbehe+ior as clearly established in "I?Ns testimony, thus5

as the accused committing a crime when you introduced yoursel+es5

@ -o, sir.

-o, so there was no reason for you to approach the accused because he was not doinganything wrong

@ -o, sir, that is our objecti+e, to approach the person and if e+er or whate+er assistance that wecan gi+e we will gi+e. 2;

The search cannot therefore be denominated as incidental to an arrest. hile acontemporaneous search of a person arrested may be effected to deli+er dangerous weapons or proofs or implements used in the commission of the crime and which search may e'tend to thearea within his immediate control where he might gain possession of a weapon or e+idence hecan destroy, 28 a +alid arrest must precede the search. The process cannot be re+ersed.

In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determinesthe +alidity of the incidental search, the legality of the arrest is :uestioned ina large majority of these cases, e%-%, whether an arrest was merely used asa prete't for conducting a search. In this instance, the law re:uires thatthere be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made S the processcannot be re+ersed. 2etNs ma(e it for four oNcloc( on *aturday

afternoon right here.

"rear5 6(ay, INll see you ne't *aturday. ;

6n une ;, 199;, ?a+id "rear, along with Bemma riones and osendo $aculanang e'ecutedtheir respecti+e sworn statements 8 at the - I ?umaguete "ity *ub 6ffice. Thereafter, on une=, 199;, osendo $aculanang and ?a+id "rear ga+e their supplemental swornstatements. < "rear also filed a complaint sheet with the - I. 7

*ubse:uently, the - I agents drew up an entrapment plan for the respondent judge and "asildoBabo. *ince ?a+id "rear did not ha+e the W ,000.00 cash which the respondent judge as(ed,the - I agents had to impro+ise. The amount of $ancer bearing plate -o. 1; B< , heading in the direction of?umaguete "ity. The car blin(ed its headlights signalling them to stop. "onsistent with theentrapment plan, "rear was able to con+ince udge arron to go bac( as "rear had left themoney at *alawa(i. "rear rode in udge arronNs car while Babo was $aculanangNs passengeron the motorcycle.

Gpon their arri+al at *alawa(i, "rear alighted from the car and discreetly informed the - Ioperati+es that the money would be deli+ered to udge arron inside the latterNs car. The - I

agents then positioned themsel+es and waited for the pre arranged signal. "rear returned to thecar carrying a blac( leatherette clutch bag containing the ele+en #11% bundles of mar(ed moneyamounting to $


30/98

*ometime in the month of @pril 199;, ?a+id "rear chanced to hold myaudience pri+ately at >ab as estaurant in ?umaguete "ity, where hefran(ly offered me money in e'change for a fa+orable decision in "i+il "ase-o. 1010 . He offered something li(e $


31/98

foreigner ?a+id "rear tomanufacture e+idence against a

judge, who is moreo+er a nati+e of?umaguete and a graduate of?umagueteNs prestigious *illimanGni+ersity.

2. The testimony of - I @gent @tty."imafranca was mar(ed byspontaneity and candor. @t some

points during his cross e'aminationby respondent himself, "imafrancae+en engaged the latter in a fran(,matter of fact, straightforwardrecall of the une =, 199;entrapment mentioning minutiae ofthe incident which could not beeasily concocted #T*-, uly =,1997, pp. 99 1


32/98

that he was to act as bait for theentrapment of ?a+id "rear by the?umaguete police, no policemane+er accompanied him either onune th or une =th when he metwith ?a+id "rear. He wasaccompanied only by "asildo Babowho was not e+en a courtemployee anymore, ha+ingretired. 24

In an effort to escape criminal liability, the respondent judge shifts the burden on the - I byraising the defense of frame up. Frame up as a defense has been in+ariably +iewed by this"ourt with disfa+or for it can just easily be concocted but is :uite difficult to pro+e. 2; @nd thedefense of frame up must be pro+ed by clear and con+incing e+idence because it is of the samecategory as alibi. 28 In the case at bar, the respondent judge failed to present any con+incinge+idence to substantiate his claim. He ad+ances the theory that the - I had carefully mappedout a frame up operation against him as a retaliatory measure for all those cases which the - Ihad filed and for which he # udge arron% caused the dismissal thereof. This cannot be gi+encredence. There is no e+idence on record that the - I harboured a personal grudge against therespondent judge. "learly, what transpired was an entrapment and not a frame up as claimed bythe respondent. )ntrapment has recei+ed judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with dueregard to "onstitutional and legal safeguards. 2< Furthermore, there is no scintilla of e+idence thatthe manner by which the - I agents conducted the operation was tainted with illegality. This

"ourt has held in the case of Ma++ari !s% Co rt of Appea+s27

that P@bsent strong and con+incingproof to the contrary, this "ourt is bound by the presumption that the arresting officers wereaware of the legal mandates in effecting an arrest and strictly complied with the same.P

The respondent judge insinuates that the search conducted on his car was illegal. e do notthin( so. here the arrest of the been caught in f+a-rante de+icto , there is no need for a warrantfor the sei&ure of the fruit of the crime as well as for the body search upon him, the same beingincidental to a lawful arrest. 29 There being a lawful arrest upon the person of the respondent

judge, the -I agents were authori&ed to conduct a warrantless search. In &eop+e !s% DeLara , 30 we held5 P@ contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the person of the arresteeand the immediate +icinity where the arrest was made.P

e ha+e pre+iously held that the warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authori&es the

arresting officer to ma(e a search upon the person of the person arrested. /oreo+er, Ptheindi+idual being arrested may be fris(ed for concealed weapons that may be used against thearresting officer and all unlawful articles found in his person, or within his immediate control maybe sei&ed.P 36

@s shown on record, a firearm was confiscated on the person of the respondent judge. Therewas e+en an attempt on the part of the respondent judge to draw such was weapon. He wasonly pre+ented from doing so on account of the timely confiscation of the firearm by the agents.The search, being merely an incident to the lawful arrest, cannot be stigmati&ed as unlawful. 32

The respondent judge denied accepting the bribe money despite the presence of PfluorescentpowderP on his hands. He claims that the money was Punceremoniously tossed to him.P 33 *uchstatement deser+es scant consideration. The pictures ta(en immediately after the arrest re+ealthat the bundles of money were neatly placed under the dri+erNs seat. If the bundles of moneywere Punceremoniously tossed to him,P it is difficult to understand how all the money found

themsel+es orderly placed under his seat. Furthermore, the incident report filed by the - Ishowed that he was caught placing the money under the dri+erNs seat.

espondent udge further contends that Pthe - I relied on the signal of ?a+id "rear, and not ontheir personal discernment of what transpired inside the car.P 34

The means employed and the manner by which the entrapment operation was conducted isassailed by the respondent judge. The reliance of the - I agents on the signal gi+en by "rearwas appropriate. It was the manner by which "rear would con+ey to the agents that the mar(edmoney was already in possession of the respondent judge. The arresting officers could not placethemsel+es in a conspicuous position where they could easily be seen by the respondent judgeas the said transaction was supposedly between "rear and udge arron only. It must be notedthat ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbrea(er inthe e'ecution of his criminal plan. 3; )ntrapment is not a bar to the prosecution and con+iction ofthe lawbrea(er.

@s regards the testimonies gi+en by the witnesses presented by the respondent judge, little, itany, credence should be gi+en.

First, the deposition of udge Teopisto "alumpang *r. was ta(en when he was still confined atthe Holy "hild Hospital. @lthough he was able to attest to the contents of his affida+it and confirmhis signature, he could not effecti+ely and intelligently relate the surrounding circumstancesleading to the e'ecution of said affida+it, as he was too sic( to do so. In addition, udge"alumpang was a co padre and a good friend of the respondent judge.

*econdly, the testimony of *$61 @+elino urla&a is wanting in substantial +eracity to warrantcredence and the necessary logic to elicit belief. e agree with the findings of the specialin+estigator that the manner by which the alleged bribe attempt was reported was notcommensurate to the stature of the judge. It was obser+ed that the entry in the police blotter washurriedly written, while the other entries in the same boo( appeared to be written moredeliberately. >i(ewise, it was noted that the entry seemed cramped as it was written at thebottom of the page, lea+ing the impression that it was a fabricated entry.

/oreo+er, when the alleged bribe attempt was reported, *$61 urla&a did not e+en bother toin:uire as to the amount in+ol+ed and the rele+ant facts relati+e to a reported crime. In addition,urla&a did not inform his superiors of the bribe attempt. His e'planation is that he waited for the

respondent judgeNs go signal before he would report the entrapment plan to his superiors. @gain,this is contrary to the standard operating police procedures. hat further taints the credibility ofthis police officer is that respondent judge was once the family lawyer of urla&a.

@ll told, a judge should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety, comporting himself in amanner that will raise no doubt whatsoe+er about his honesty. 38 The conduct of respondent

judge shows that he can be influenced by monetary considerations. His act of demanding andrecei+ing money from a party litigant constitutes serious misconduct in office. It is this (ind ofgross and flaunting misconduct, no matter how nominal the amount in+ol+ed on the part of thosewho are charged with the responsibility of administering the law and rendering justice :uic(ly,which erodes the respect for law and the courts. 3)-TI-6.

1. $rior to @ugust ;, 19= #hereinafter to be referred to without the year%, @BGI>@ 6G) wasone of the accused of ebellion in "riminal "ase -o.


39/98

/" 2 11< of /ilitary "ommission -o. 2 , both cases being entitled P &eop+e of t5e &5i+ippines!s% Jose Ma% Sison, et a+ .P *he was then still at large.

2. @t 115@ 6 G) and -6>@*"6 were arrested by a"onstabulary *ecurity Broup #"*B% at the intersection of /ayon *treet and $. /argall *treet,ue&on "ity. The stated time is an allegation of petitioners, not denied by respondents. Therecord does not disclose that a warrant of arrest had pre+iously beeen issued against-6>@*"6.

apus has been submitted tous. The latter deposed that to his personal (nowledge, there were (ept in the premises to besearched records, documents and other papers of the "$$4-$@ and the -ational ?emocraticFront, including support money from foreign and local sources intended to be used forrebellion. 6

. In connection with the search made at 12500 -. of @ugust ;th the following may be stated5

#a% T6>)-TI-6 was a person then in charge of the premises. He was arrested by the searchingparty presumably without a warrant of arrest.

#b% The searching party sei&ed 2= documents and written materials, 2 and additionally aportable typewriter, and 2 wooden bo'es, ma(ing )-TI-6 was present. The list of the 2=

articles and documents attached to the eturn was signed by the two arangay Tanods, but notby ?ra. Balang.

;. #a% 6n @ugust 10th, the three petitioners, @BGI>@ 6 G), -6>@*"6 and T6>)-TI-6,were charged before the ue&on "ity FiscalNs 6ffice #the "ITJ FI*"@>, for short% uponcomplaint filed by the "*B against petitioners for P*ub+ersion4 ebellion and4or "onspiracy to"ommit ebellion4*ub+ersion.P

#b% 6n @ugust 1 filed an Information for 8iolation of $residential ?ecree-o.


40/98

present petition without petitioners first mo+ing for the :uashal of the disputed *earch arrantwith the issuing udge.

e find merit in the $etition.

*ection ist ofpossible supporters, sub+ersi+e boo(s and instructions, manuals nototherwise a+ailable to the public, and support money from foreign or localsources.

It is at once e+ident that the foregoing *earch arrant authori&es the sei&ure of personalproperties +aguely described and not particulari&ed. It is an all embracing description whichincludes e+erything concei+able regarding the "ommunist $arty of the $hilippines and the-ational ?emocratic Front. It does not specify what the sub+ersi+e boo(s and instructions are3what the manuals not otherwise a+ailable to the public contain to ma(e them sub+ersi+e or toenable them to be used for the crime of rebellion. There is absent a definite guideline to thesearching team as to what items might be lawfully sei&ed thus gi+ing the officers of the lawdiscretion regarding what articles they should sei&e as, in fact, ta(en also were a portabletypewriter and 2 wooden bo'es. It is thus in the nature of a general warrant and infringes on theconstitutional mandate re:uiring particular description of the things to be sei&ed. In the recentrulings of this "ourt, search warrants of similar description were considered null and +oid forbeing too general. Thus5

*ub+ersi+e documents, pamphlets, leaflets, boo(s, and other publications to

promote the objecti+es and purposes of the sub+ersi+e organi&ations (nownas /o+ement for Free $hilippines. >ight a Fire /o+ement and @pril ;/o+ement. 8

The things to be sei&ed under the warrant issued by respondent judge weredescribed as Nsub+ersi+e documents, propaganda materials, F@s, printingparaphernalia and all other sub+ersi+e materials *uch description hardlypro+ided a definite guideline to the search team as to what articles might belawfully sei&ed thereunder. *aid description is no different from if not worsethan, the description found in the search warrants in = r-os, et a+% !% t5eC5ief of Staff which this "ourt declared null and +oid for being too general. @ 6G) has been charged with ebellion, which is a crime againstpublic order3 that the warrant for her arrest has not been ser+ed for a considerable period oftime3 that she was arrested within the general +icinity of her dwelling3 and that the search of herdwelling was made within a half hour of her arrest, we are of the opinion that in her respect, thesearch at -o. 2


42/98

R d9 $% A-ra!ate for petitioner%

GANCA CO, J.:

The +alidity of a warrantless search on the person of petitioner is put into issue in this case.

6n 6ctober 1;, 19=; at about 10500 oNcloc( in the morning $at. Grsicio Gngab and $at. Gmbra

Gmpar, both members of the Integrated -ational $olice #I-$% of the ?a+ao /etrodiscomassigned with the Intelligence Tas( Force, were conducting a sur+eillance along /agallanes*treet, ?a+ao "ity. hile they were within the premises of the i&al /emorial "olleges theyspotted petitioner carrying a PburiP bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously.

They approached the petitioner and identified themsel+es as members of the I-$. $etitionerattempted to flee but his attempt to get away was thwarted by the two notwithstanding hisresistance.

They then chec(ed the PburiP bag of the petitioner where they found one #1% caliber .


43/98

$etitioner 8almonteNs general allegation to the effect that he had beenstopped and searched without a search warrant by the military manning thechec(points, without more, i.e., without stating the details of the i ncidentswhich amount to a +iolation of his light against unlawful search and sei&ure,is not sufficient to enable the "ourt to determine whether there was a+iolation of 8almonteNs right against unlawful search and sei&ure. Not a++searc5es and sei" res are pro5ibited% T5ose 35ic5 are reasonab+e are notforbidden% A reasonab+e searc5 is not to be deter ined b9 an9 fi8ed for +ab t is to be reso+!ed accordin- to t5e facts of eac5 case%

here, for e'ample, the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a +acant+ehicle which is par(ed on the public fair grounds, or simply loo(s into a+ehicle or flashes a light therein, these do not constitute unreasonablesearch.

The setting up of the :uestioned chec(points in 8alen&uela #and probably inother areas% may be considered as a security measure to enable the-" ?" to pursue its mission of establishing effecti+e territorial defense andmaintaining peace and order for the benefit of the public. "hec(points mayalso be regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabili&e the go+ernmentin the interest of public security. In this connection, the "ourt may ta(e

judicial notice of the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of theinsurgency mo+ement, so clearly reflected in the increased (illings in citiesof police and military men by -$@ Psparrow units,P not to mention theabundance of unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in lawlessness and+iolence in such urban centers, not all of which are reported in media, mostli(ely brought about by deteriorating economic conditions S which all sumup to what one can rightly consider, at the +ery least, as abnormaltimes. =et3een t5e in5erent ri-5t of t5e state to protect its e8istence and

pro ote p b+ic 3e+fare and an indi!id a+@s ri-5t a-ainst a 3arran t+esssearc5 35ic5 is 5o3e!er reasonab+9 cond cted, t5e for er s5o +d pre!ai+%

True, the manning of chec(points by the military is susceptible of abuse bythe men in uniform in the same manner that all go+ernmental power issusceptible of abuse. ut, at the cost of occasional incon+enience,discomfort and e+en irritation to the citi&en, the chec(points during theseabnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part of theprice we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community. #)mphasissupplied%.

Thus, as between a warrantless search and sei&ure conducted at military or police chec(pointsand the search thereat in the case at bar, there is no :uestion that, indeed, the latter is morereasonable considering that unli(e in the former, it was effected on the basis of a probablecause. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to fleewith the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in thebag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same.

It is too much indeed to re:uire the police officers to search the bag in the possession of thepetitioner only after they shall ha+e obtained a search warrant for the purpose. *uch an e'ercisemay pro+e to be useless, futile and much too late.

In &eop+e !s% CFI of Ri"a+ , 7 this "ourt held as follows5

. . . In the ordinary cases where warrant is indispensably necessary, themechanics prescribed by the "onstitution and reiterated in the ules of"ourt must be followed and satisfied. ut e need not argue that there aree'ceptions. Thus in the e'traordinary e+ents where warrant is not necessaryto effect a +alid search or sei&ure, or when the latter cannot be performede'cept without warrant, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonablesearch or sei&ure becomes purely a judicial :uestion, determinable from theuni:ueness of the circumstances in+ol+ed, including the purpose of thesearch or sei&ure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the mannerin which the search and sei&ure was made, the place or thing searched andthe character of the articles procured.

The "ourt reproduces with appro+al the following dis:uisition of the *olicitor Beneral5

The assailed search and sei&ure may still be justified as a(in to a Pstop andfris(P situation whose object is either to determine the identity of asuspicious indi+idual or to maintain the status :uo momentarily while thepolice officer see(s to obtain more information. This is illustrated in the caseof Terr9 !s% O5io ,


44/98

A!! !ALACA !ANDAR, petitioner,+s.CO%R OF APPEAL , and PEOPLE OF HE PHILIPPINE , respondents.

DA IDE, $R., J.:

In an Information 6 filed on t. )duardo "abrera and $6 ?iosdado ?iotoy fore'amination of a grenade. amilo then affi'ed an orange tag on the subject grenade detailinghis name, the date and time he recei+ed the specimen. ?uring the preliminary e'amination ofthe grenade, he PKfLound that KtheL major components consisting of KaL high filler and fuseassembly KwereL all present,P and concluded that the grenade was PKlLi+e and capable ofe'ploding.P 6n e+en date, he issued a certification stating his findings, a copy of which heforwarded to ?iotoy on 11 @ugust 1991. 63

$etitioner was the lone defense witness. He declared that he arri+ed in /anila on 22 uly 1990and resided at the /uslim "enter in uiapo, /anila. @t around ;5


45/98

as petitioner and his companions were acting suspiciously, considering the time, place andPreported cases of bombing.P Further, petitionerNs group suddenly ran away in different directionsas they saw the arresting officers approach, thus PKiLt is reasonable for an officer to conduct alimited search, the purpose of which is not necessarily to disco+er e+idence of a crime, but toallow the officer to pursue his i n+estigation without fear of +iolence.P 67

The trial court then ruled that the sei&ure of the grenade from petitioner was incidental to a lawfularrest, and since petitioner PKlLater +oluntarily admitted such fact to the police in+estigator for thepurpose of bombing the /ercury ?rug *tore,P concluded that sufficient e+idence e'isted toestablish petitionerNs guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In its decision 69 dated 10 February 199 but promulgated on 1 February 199 , the trial courtthus found petitioner guilty of the crime of illegal possession of e'plosi+es under *ection < of$.?. -o. 1=;, and sentenced him to suffer5

KTLhe penalty of not less than *)8)-T))- #17% J)@ *, F6G # %/6-TH* @-? 6-) #1% ?@J 6F RECL;SION TEM&ORAL , as minimum,and not more than THI TJ #


46/98


47/98


48/98

was already ;5@"@T y /@-?@ is hereby

@" GITT)? and 6?) )? immediately released from detention, unless his further detentionis justified for any other lawful cause.

"osts de oficio .

*6 6 ?) )?.


49/98

G.R. No. L-4433; $ 30, 6938

HE PEOPLE OF HE PHILIPPINE I LAND , plaintiff appellee,+s.KAG%I !ALA %G%I, defendantappellant.

Man e+ Jose for appe++ant%Office of t5e So+icitor#$enera+ ieutenant @.acaria of the "onstabulary ordered his immediate arrest. The accused was arrested shortlyafter eight oNcloc( in the morning of the same day, and after he had been brought to >ieutenantacaria, who had already been informed, that he had just redeemed two pairs of bracelets from

some pawnshops of "otabato and that he carried money, said lieutenant as(ed him for thebracelets and he then +oluntarily and without protest produced what now appear in the record as)'hibit @. He was later searched, without opposition or protest on his part, and it was disco+eredthat he also had the poc(etboo( #)'hibit %, containing $92 in bills #)'hibit "%, Tan hyNsidentification card and a memorandum of amounts with some "hinese characters #)'hibit ?%. Inone of the poc(ets of his pants was found some change, ma(ing the total amount of moneyfound in his possession $92.;=.

Tan hy, the deceased, carried the poc(etboo(, )'hibit , as he did on former occasions, a fewhours before his body was found in the condition and under the circumstances abo+e stated.efore he left his home between .


50/98

li+ed. The club, )'hibit /, then with bloodstains, was found near the place where Tan hy waswounded.

"hua *ian, an employee of the deceased, identified the poc(etboo( )'hibit saying that it wasthe same that the deceased used to carry whene+er he went to ma(e purchases3 that it wasusually (ept in a bo' at Tan hyNs store3 that the deceased in truth carried it when he left hisstore on the morning of /arch , 19< , to purchase palay, and that it was then full of bills.

Oaw Tin, cashier of the /indanao ice Industrial "ompany, in turn, testified that on the nightbefore the crime, he ga+e the deceased, at the latterNs re:uest the sum of $1 0 to purchasepalay, inasmuch as he was a buyer of said commodity for the company in "otabato.

@bout four meters from the place where Tan hyNs body was found, there was a coconut treewith two dangling lea+es, as if they were so arranged intentionally to hide anybody who mightpost himself near the trun(. @t the +ery place where the tips of the lea+es touched the ground,there were footprints presumably of somebody who had posted who had posted himself there inambush, without being seen5 the fresh footprints e'actly the same si&e as the appellantNs foot3and the said bloodstained club was found +ery near the place. *uch was the testimony of>ieutenant acaria and *ergeant )usebio de los *antos who inspected the scene of the crime,particularly the latter who did so early in the morning and too( said measurements with the aid of )'hibit ) which is a part of a reed grass leaf.

The appellant testified at the trial that >ieutenant acaria and *ergeant Grangut had forcibly and

through intimidation ta(en from him the bracelets #)'hibit @%, the poc(etboo( #)'hibit % and allthe money which he carried #)'hibit "%3 and that, but for the printing thereon, the identificationcard found in the poc(etboo( then was blan( and there was no memorandum of the (ind of)'hibit ?, in Tan hyNs handwriting, inside the poc(etboo(, thereby, insinuating that it was>ieutenant acaria who typed or caused to be typewritten on the card Tan hyNs name andpersonal data and who placed )'hibit ? in the poc(etboo(. There is nothing of record tocorroborate the appellantNs imputation to said two officers3 and it is unbelie+able that they soacted because they were induced by no other moti+e than to comply with their duties as agentsof authority. The appellant permitted them to search his person and to ta(e from him the articlesin :uestion to be used as e+idence against him in due time3 at least, he neither made anyobjection nor e+en muttered a bit of protest. "onse:uently, his contention that he was subjectedto the rigor of an unreasonable search to dispossess him of his effects without judicial warrant,and that the court should ha+e ordered their return to him when he so formally re:uested beforethe trial, is unfounded. hen one +oluntarily submits to a search or consents to ha+e it made of

his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof. #"ooley, "onstitutional>imitations, =th ed., +ol. I page ;. . 20 ". >.,


51/98

@nent an identical :uestion, the *upreme "ourt of 8irginia, in Gnited *tates !s% *nyder, s pra ,said5

To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the e+idenceand to(ens of his crime without a warrant, would be to lea+e society, to a large e'tent,at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most e'pert, and the most depra+ed of criminals,facilitating their escape in many instances.

The appellant contends that the lower court did not grant him e+en twenty four hours to preparehis defense, thereby denying him the right afforded to e+ery accused by section


52/98

G.R. No. L-4;3;7 $an a 29, 693aw ?ictionary3 *tate !s% ac(son, 1aw. @t thehearing of the incidents of the case raised before the court it clearly appeared that theboo(s and documents had really been sei&ed to enable the @nti Gsury oard to

conduct an in+estigation and later use all or some of the articles in :uestion as That as the warrant had been issued unreasonably and as it does not appear positi+ely in the


55/98

conduct an in+estigation and later use all or some of the articles in :uestion ase+idence against the petitioner in the criminal cases that may be filed against him. Thesei&ure of boo(s and documents by means of a search warrant, for the purpose ofusing them as e+idence in a cri minal case against the person in whose possessionthey were found, is unconstitutional because it ma(es the warrant unreasonable, andit is e:ui+alent to a +iolation of the constitutional pro+ision prohibiting the compulsionof an accused to testify against himself #Gy Oheytin !s%8illareal, 2 $hil,, ==;3rady !s% G. *., 2;; G. *., ;203 Temperani !s% G. *., 299 Fed., u(ban !s% /c/ic(ing, 1 $hil., ; 13 >amb !s% $hipps,22 $hil., ;%.

*ummari&ing the foregoing conclusions, we hold5

1. That the pro+isions of the "onstitution and Beneral 6rders, -o. =, relati+e to search andsei&ure, should be gi+en a liberal construction in fa+or of the indi+idual in order to maintain theconstitutional guaranties whole and in their full force3

2. That since the pro+isions in :uestion are drastic in their form and fundamentally restrict theenjoyment of the ownership, possession and use of the personal property of the indi+idual, theyshould be strictly construed3

aw3

. That as the warrant had been issued unreasonably, and as it does not appear positi+ely in theaffida+it that the articles were in the possession of the petitioner and in the place indicated,neither could the search and sei&ure be made at night3

. That although it is not mandatory to present affida+its of witnesses to corroborate theapplicant or a complainant in cases where the latter has personal (nowledge of the facts, whenthe applicantNs or complainantNs (nowledge of the facts is merely hearsay, it is the duty of the

judge to re:uire affida+its of other witnesses so that he may determine whether probable causee'ists3

;. That a detailed description of the person and place to be searched and the articles to besei&ed is necessary, but whereby, by the nature of the articles to be sei&ed, their descriptionmust be rather general, but is not re:uired that a technical description be gi+en, as this wouldmean that no warrant could issue3

7. That the petitioner did not wai+e his constitutional rights because the offer of compromise orsettlement attributed to him, does not mean, if so made, that he +oluntarily tolerated the searchand sei&ure3 and

=. That an appeal from the orders :uestioned by the petitioner, if ta(en by him, would not be aneffecti+e, speedy or ade:uate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and, conse:uently, thepetition for anda s filed by him, lies.

For the foregoing considerations, the search warrant and the sei&ure of une


56/98

G.R. No. L-4;9;0 $ n/ 20, 6937

LEONA PA ION I%DA DE GARCIA, petitioner,+s.DIEGO LOC IN, $ d:/ o1 F # In# an*/ o1 a a*,FELI I!PERIAL, P o" n* a F #*a o1 a a*, and / AN I-% %R BOARD, respondents.

=eni-o S% A ino and Marcia+ &% Lic5a co for petitioner Ado+fo N% Fe+iciano for t5e respondent Anti#;s r9 =oard%Office of t5e So+icitor#$enera+ T ason for ot5er respondents%

LA%REL,J.:

This is a petition for anda s presented to secure the annulment of a search warrant and twoorders of the respondent judge, and the restoration of certain documents alleged to ha+e beenillegally sei&ed by an agent of the @nti Gsuary oard.

It appears that on -o+ember 10, 19< , /ariano B. @lmeda, an agent of the @nti Gsuary oard,obtained from the justice of the peace of Tarlac, Tarlac, a search warrant#)'hibit % commandingany officer of the law to search the person, house or store of the petitioner at 8ictoria, Tarlac, forPcertain boo(s, lists, chits, receipts, documents and other papers relating to her acti+ities asusurer.P The search warrant was issued upon an affida+it gi+en by the said @lmeda Pthat he hasand there #is% just and probable cause to belie+e and he does belie+e that >eona $asion deBarcia (eeps and conceals in her house and store at 8ictoria, Tarlac, certain boo(s, lists, chits,receipts, documents, and other papers relating to her acti+ities as usurer, all of which is contraryto the statute in such cases made and pro+ided.P 6n the same date, the said /ariano B.

@lmeda, accompanied by a captain of the $hilippine "onstabulary, went to the office of thepetitioner in 8ictoria, Tarlac and, after showing the search warrant to the petitionerNs boo((eeper,

@lfredo *alas, and, without the presence of the petitioner who was ill and confined at the time,proceeded with the e'ecution thereof. Two pac(ages of records and a loc(ed filing cabinetcontaining se+eral $apers and documents were sei&ed by @lmeda and a receipt therefor issuedby him to *alas. The papers and documents sei&ed were (ept for a considerable length of timeby the @nti Gsury oard and thereafter were turned o+er by it to the respondent fiscal whosubse:uently filed, in the "ourt of First Instance of Tarlac, si' separate criminal cases againstthe herein petitioner for +iolation of the @nti Gsury >aw.

6n se+eral occasions after sei&ure the petitioner through counsel demanded from the court is therefore correct in reaching the conclusion that the search warrant #)'hibit % was


57/98

6n se+eral occasions, after sei&ure, the petitioner, through counsel, demanded from therespondent @nti Gsury oard the return of the documents sei&ed. 6n anuary 7. and, by motion,on une , 19


58/98

of Tarlac or those acting in their behalf, are hereby ordered to return and restore to the petitionerall the properties, documents, papers and effects illegally sei&ed from her, within forty eight # =%hours from the time this decision becomes final. ithout costs. *o ordered.

A!ance a, C%J%, Vi++a#Rea+, Abad Santos, I peria+, Dia" and Concepcion, JJ%, conc r%

G.R. No. L-3eona @gbot *ubat since she was two years old. >eona refused tosurrender the child to the accused because of her sacrifices and e'penses in theupbringing and education of /ilagrosa. The accused left angrily, saying S Ctightenyour belt,D a phrase which, in the custom of the /andayan tribe to which they belong,


59/98

ith appellantAs confession fulfilling all elements of admissibility, and supported as it is by


60/98

pp g y, pp yindependent e+idence of corpus delicti, which is the fact of the crime ha+ing been committed, together with the finding in appellantAs house of the weapon that undisputably inflicted the fatalwounds sustained by the deceased, it would be futile to argue against the sufficiency of thee+idence to pro+e guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as counsel had tried to do, and commendablyso, had it not been for his manifest misreading of the e+idence. Thus, he would a+er that corpusdelicti has not been pro+en ; when the fact of death due to foul means has been so undeniablyestablished by the lifeless body bearing wounds that undisputably caused the death to the+ictim.

The crime committed is murder, :ualified by treachery and with the aggra+ating circumstancesof dwelling 7 and relationship, the +ictim being the sister of appellant. =

)+ident premeditation cannot be appreciated against appellant it appearing that no timesufficient for calm reflection of the conse:uences of the crime committed inter+ened betweenplanning and e'ecution. 9 -either se' could be ta(en against appellant there being no proof thatthere was deliberate intention to offend or insult the se' of the +ictim. 10

hile lac( of instruction may not be appreciated in fa+or of appellant as argued by counsel, theoffense of ta(ing oneAs life being forbidden by natural law and therefore within the instincti+e(nowledge and feeling of any human being not depri+ed of reason 11 appellant being a member of the cultural minority may be considered in his fa+or, pursuant to *ec. 10; of the @dministrati+e"ode of /indanao and *ulu and entitle him, regardless of the attending circumstances, to lifeimprisonment instead of death. 12 It is no legal obstacle to accord to him this benefit of the lawbecause he failed to in+o(e same in the court a :uo, for in an appeal of a criminal case, same isthrown open for a complete re+iew of all errors, by commission or omission, as may beimputable to the trial court.

H) )F6 ), the judgment of con+iction is affirmed, but the death sentence is hereby reducedto life imprisonment, ta(ing also into account the length of time he had already been in the deathrow. "ost de oficio.

*6 6 ?) )?.


61/98

p g @confrontation on the street between the citi&en and the policeman in+estigating suspiciouscircumstances.

$etitioner Terry was con+icted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to the statutorilyprescribed term of one to three years in the penitentiary . n6 Following +; the denial of a pretrialmotion to suppress, the prosecution introduced in e+idence two re+ol+ers and a number ofbullets sei&ed from Terry and a codefendant, ichard "hilton , n2 by "le+eland $olice ?etecti+e/artin /cFadden. @t the hearing on the motion to suppress this e+idence, 6fficer /cFaddentestified that, while he was patrolling in plain clothes in downtown "le+eland at appro'imately25


62/98

conte't in which it is asserted. For Pwhat the "onstitution forbids is not all searches andsei&ures, but unreasonable searches and sei&ures.P )l(ins +. Gnited *tates,


63/98

underta(en on the basis of ample factual justification should in no way discourage theemployment of other remedies than the e'clusionary rule to curtail abuses for which thatsanction may pro+e inappropriate.

Ha+ing thus roughly s(etched the perimeters of the constitutional debate o+er the limits onpolice in+estigati+e conduct in general and the bac(ground against which this case presentsitself, we turn our attention to the :uite narrow :uestion posed by the facts before us5 whether itis always unreasonable for a policeman to sei&e a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is probable cause for an arrest. +68 Bi+en the narrowness of this:uestion, we ha+e no occasion to can+ass in detail the constitutional limitations upon the scopeof a policemanNs power when he confronts a citi&en wi thout probable cause to arrest him.

II

6ur first tas( is to establish at what point in this encounter the Fourth @mendment becomesrele+ant. That is, we must decide whether and when 6fficer /cFadden Psei&edP Terry, andwhether and when he conducted a Psearch.P There is some suggestion in the use of such termsas PstopP and Pfris(P that such police conduct is outside the pur+iew of the Fourth @mendmentbecause neither action rises to the le+el of a PsearchP or Psei&ureP within the meaning of the"onstitution . n62 e emphatically reject this notion. It is :uite plain that the Fourth @mendmentgo+erns Psei&uresP of the person which do not e+entuate in a trip to the stationhouse andprosecution for crime ParrestsP in traditional terminology. It must be recogni&ed that, whene+era police officer accosts an indi+idual and restrains his freedom to wal( away, he has Psei&edPthat person. @nd it is nothing less than sheer torture of the )nglish language to suggest that acareful e'ploration of the outer surfaces of a personNs clothing all o+er his or her body in anattempt to find weapons is not a Psearch.P /oreo+er, it is simply fantastic to urge that such aprocedure +6< performed in public by a policeman while the citi&en stands helpless, perhapsfacing a wall with his hands raised, is a Ppetty indignity.P n63 It is a serious intrusion upon thesanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it isnot to be underta(en lightly. n64

The danger in the logic which proceeds upon distinctions between a PstopP and an Parrest,P orPsei&ureP of the person, and between a Pfris(P and a Psearch,P is twofold. It see(s to isolate fromconstitutional scrutiny the initial stages of the contact between the policeman and the citi&en.

@nd, by suggesting a rigid all or nothing model of justification and regulation under the @mendment, it obscures the utility of limitations upon the scope, as well as the initiation, of

police action as a means of constitutional regulation . n6;

This "ourt has held, in+67

the pastthat a search which is reasonable at its inception may +iolate the Fourth @mendment by +irtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. Oremen +. Gnited *tates, < < G.*. < ; #19 7%3 Bo artImporting "o. +. +69 Gnited *tates, 2=2 G.*. < , < ; < = #19


64/98

@pplying these principles to this case, we consider first the nature and e'tent of thego+ernmental interests in+ol+ed. 6ne general interest is, of course, that of effecti+e crimepre+ention and detection3 it is this interest which underlies the recognition that a police officermay, in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person forpurposes of in+estigating possibly criminal beha+ior e+en though there is no probable cause toma(e an arrest. It was this legitimate in+estigati+e function 6fficer /cFadden was dischargingwhen he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. He had obser+ed Terry, "hilton,and Oat& go through a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which, ta(entogether, warranted further in+estigation. There is nothing unusual in two men standing togetheron a street corner, perhaps waiting for someone. -or is there anything suspicious aboutpeople +23 in such circumstances strolling up and down the street, singly or in pairs. *torewindows, moreo+er, are made to be loo(ed in. ut the story is :uite different where, as here, twomen ho+er about a street corner for an e'tended period of time, at the end of which it becomesapparent that they are not waiting for anyone or anything3 where these men pace alternatelyalong an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window roughly 2 times3 whereeach completion of this route is followed immediately by a conference between the two men onthe corner3 where they are joined in one of these conferences by a third man who lea+es swiftly,and where the two men finally follow the third and rejoin him a couple of bloc(s away. It wouldha+e been poor police wor( indeed for an officer of


65/98

due weight must be gi+en not to his inchoate and unparticulari&ed suspicion or Phunch,P but tothe specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of hise'perience. "f. rinegar +. Gnited *tates supra.

I8

e must now e'amine the conduct of 6fficer /cFadden in this case to determine whether hissearch and sei&ure of petitioner were reasonable, both at their inception +27 and asconducted. He had obser+ed Terry, together with "hilton and another man, acting in a manner

he too( to be preface to a Pstic( up.P e thin(, on the facts and circumstances 6fficer/cFadden detailed before the trial judge, a reasonably prudent man would ha+e been warrantedin belie+ing petitioner was armed, and thus presented a threat to the officerNs safety while hewas in+estigating his suspicious beha+ior. The actions of Terry and "hilton were consistent with/cFaddenNs hypothesis that these men were contemplating a daylight robbery which, i t isreasonable to assume, would be li(ely to in+ol+e the use of weapons and nothing in theirconduct from the time he first noticed them until the time he confronted them and identifiedhimself as a police officer ga+e him sufficient reason to negate that hypothesis. @lthough the triohad departed the original scene, there was nothing to indicate abandonment of an intent tocommit a robbery at some point. Thus, when 6fficer /cFadden approached the three mengathered before the display window at Uuc(erNs store, he had obser+ed enough to ma(e it :uitereasonable to fear that they were armed, and nothing in their response to his hailing them,identifying himself as a police officer, and as(ing their names ser+ed to dispel that reasonablebelief. e cannot say his decision at that point to sei&e Terry and pat his clothing for weapons

was the product of a +olatile or in+enti+e imagination, or was underta(en simply as an act ofharassment3 the record e+idences the tempered act of a policeman who, in the course of anin+estigation, had to ma(e a :uic( decision as to how to protect himself and others from possibledanger, and too( limited steps to do so.

The manner in which the sei&ure and search were conducted is, of course, as +ital a part of thein:uiry as whether they were warranted at all. The Fourth @mendment proceeds as much bylimitations upon the +29 scope of go+ernmental action as by imposing preconditions upon itsinitiation. "ompare Oat& +. Gnited *tates,


66/98

D/ a a / ". P o #/

-o. 77 1 71

@rgued anuary 17, 1979

?ecided /arch 27, 1979

0 G.*. ; =

") TI6 @ I T6 TH) *G$ )/) "6G T 6F ?)>@ @ )

*yllabus

@ patrolman in a police cruiser stopped an automobile occupied by respondent and sei&edmarihuana in plain +iew on the car floor. espondent was subse:uently indicted for illegalpossession of a controlled substance. @t a hearing on respondentNs motion to suppress themarihuana, the patrolman testified that, prior to stopping the +ehicle, he had obser+ed neithertraffic or e:uipment +iolations nor any suspicious acti+ity, and that he made the stop only inorder to chec( the dri+erNs license and the carNs registration. The patrolman was not actingpursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot chec(s,promulgated by either his department or the *tate @ttorney Beneral. The trial court granted themotion to suppress, finding the stop and detention to ha+e been wholly capricious, and therefore+iolati+e of the Fourth @mendment. The ?elaware *upreme "ourt affirmed.

Held5

1. This "ourt has jurisdiction in this case e+en though the ?elaware *upreme "ourt held that thestop at issue not only +iolated the Federal "onstitution but also was impermissible under the?elaware "onstitution. That courtNs opinion shows that, e+en if the *tate "onstitution wouldha+e pro+ided an ade:uate basis for the judgment below, the court did not intend to rest itsdecision independently on the *tate "onstitution, its holding instead depending upon its +iew ofthe reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth @mendments. $p. 0 G. *. ; 1 ;


67/98

#b% The *tateNs interest in discretionary spot chec(s as a means of ensuring the safety of i tsroadways does not outweigh the resulting intrusion on the pri+acy and security of the personsdetained. Bi+en the physical and psychological intrusion +isited upon the occupants of a +ehicleby a random stop to chec( documents, cf. Gnited *tates +. rignoni $once, 22 G. @"O/G-, $6 )>>, and *T)8)-*, ., joined. >@"O/G-, .,filed a concurring opinion, in which $6 )>>, ., joined, post, p. 0 G. *. ;;


68/98

Pa random stop of a motorist in the absence of specific articulable facts which justify the stop byindicating a reasonable suspicion that a +iolation of the law has occurred is constitutionallyimpermissible and +iolati+e of the Fourth and Fourteenth @mendments to the Gnited *tates"onstitution.P

Id. at 1


69/98

permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on theindi+idualNs Fourth @mendment interests against its promotion of legitimate go+ernmentalinterests. KFootnote =L Implemented in this manner, the reasonableness standard usuallyre:uires, at a minimum, that the facts upon which an intrusion is based be capable ofmeasurement against Pan objecti+e standard,P KFootnote 9L whether this be probable causeKFootnote 10L or a less stringent test. KFootnote 11L In those situations in which the balance ofinterests precludes insistence upon Psome :uantum

$age 0 G. *. ;

of indi+iduali&ed suspicion,P KFootnote 12L other safeguards are generally relied upon to assurethat the indi+idualNs reasonable e'pectation of pri+acy is not Psubject to the discretion of theofficial in the field,P "amara +. /unicipal "ourt,


70/98

The :uestion remains, howe+er, whether, in the ser+ice of these important ends, thediscretionary spot chec( is a sufficiently producti+e mechanism to justify the intrusion upon


71/98

discretionary spot chec( is a sufficiently producti+e mechanism to justify the intrusion uponFourth @mendment interests which such stops entail. 6n the record before us, that :uestionmust be answered in the negati+e. Bi+en the alternati+e mechanisms a+ailable, both those inuse and those that might be adopted, we are uncon+inced that the incremental contribution tohighway safety of the random spot chec( justifies the practice under the Fourth @mendment.

The foremost method of enforcing traffic and +ehicle safety regulations, it must be recalled, is

acting upon obser+ed +iolations. 8ehicle stops for traffic +iolations occur countless times eachday3 and on these occasions, licenses and registration papers are subject to inspection, anddri+ers without them will be ascertained. Furthermore, dri+ers without licenses are presumablythe less safe dri+ers whose propensities may well e'hibit themsel+es. KFootnote 19L @bsentsome empirical data to the contrary, it must be assumed that finding an unlicensed dri+er amongthose who commit traffic +iolations is a much more l i(ely e+ent than finding an unlicensed dri+erby choosing randomly from the entire uni+erse of dri+ers. If this were not so, licensing of dri+erswould hardly be an effecti+e means of promoting roadway safety. It seems common sense thatthe

$age 0 G. *. ;;0

percentage of all dri+ers on the road who are dri+ing without a license i s +ery small, and that thenumber of licensed dri+ers who will be stopped in order to find one unlicensed operator will belarge indeed. The contribution to highway safety made by discretionary stops selected fromamong dri+ers generally will therefore be marginal, at best. Furthermore, and again absentsomething more than mere assertion to the contrary, we find it difficult to belie+e that theunlicensed dri+er would not be deterred by the possibility of being in+ol+ed in a traffic +iolation or ha+ing some other e'perience calling for proof of his entitlement to dri+e, but that he would bedeterred by the possibility that he would be one of those chosen for a spot chec(. In terms ofactually disco+ering unlicensed dri+ers or deterring them from dri+ing, the spot chec( does notappear sufficiently producti+e to :ualify as a reasonable law enforcement practice under theFourth @mendment.

/uch the same can be said about the safety aspects of automobiles, as distinguished fromdri+ers. /an

Documents

Crimpro Cases 3