People v. Binad Chua
People v. Binad Chua
People v. Binad Chua
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
658
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ducting a search. In this instance, the law requires that there first
be arrest before a search can be made—the process cannot be
reversed. At bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer
may search the person of the arrestee and the area within which
the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and
seize any money or property found which was used in the
commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that which
may be used as evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee
with the means of escaping or committing violence. x x x x x x x x
x We now proceed to the justification for and allowable scope of a
“stop-and-frisk” as a “limited protective search of outer clothing for
weapons,” as laid down in Terry, thus: We merely hold today that
where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him
reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal
activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is
dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the
course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a
policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in
the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable
fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection
of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited
search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to
discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a
search is a reasonable search under the Fourth amendment.
Other notable points of Terry are that while probable cause is not
required to conduct a “stop-and-frisk,” it nevertheless holds that
mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a “stop-and-frisk.” A
genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience
and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person
detained has weapons concealed about him. Finally, a “stop-and-
frisk” serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of
effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the
recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person
for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even
without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of
safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take
steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not
armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly, and fatally
be used against the police officer. (Emphasis ours)
659
commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
_______________
1 Records, Volume 1, p. 1.
2 Ibid., p. 12.
661
_______________
3 TSN, January 7, 1998, pp. 4-10; TSN, April 21, 1998, pp. 5-9.
4 TSN, April 21, 1998, pp. 9-10.
5 Records, Vol. 2. p. 306.
662
_______________
663
_______________
9 Rollo, p. 26.
10 Ibid., pp. 40-41.
664
_______________
11 People v. Alvarado, G.R. No. 145730, March 19, 2002, 379 SCRA 475 citing
People v. De Los Santos, 355 SCRA 301 (2001); People v. Osing, 349 SCRA 310
(2001).
12 People v. Leones, G.R. Nos. 128514 & 143856-61, October 3, 2001, 366 SCRA
535.
13 People v. Manambit, 271 SCRA 344, 385-386 (1997), citing Heirs of Crisanta
Y. Gabriel-Almoradie v. CA, 229 SCRA 15 (1994) and People v. Villagracia, 226
SCRA 374, 381 (1993).
665
At the outset, we note that the trial court confused the concepts of
a “stop-and-frisk” and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest.
These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the
requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and
in their allowable scope.
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest
determines the validity of the incidental search, the legality of the
arrest is questioned in a large majority of these cases, e.g.,
whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a
search. In this instance, the law requires that there first be arrest
before a search can be made—the process cannot be reversed. At
bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search
the person of the arrestee and the area within which the latter
may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any
money or property found which was used in the commission of the
crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that which may be used as
evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee with the means of
escaping or committing violence.
x x x x x x x x x
_______________
666
_______________
667
_______________
668
_______________
669
670
_______________
671
_______________
672
_______________
673
The narcotics field test, which initially identified the seized item
as marijuana, was likewise not conducted at the scene of the
crime, but only at the narcotics office. There is thus reasonable
doubt as to whether the item allegedly seized from accused-
appellant is the same brick of marijuana marked by the policemen
in their headquarters and given by them to the crime laboratory.
_______________
674
SO ORDERED.