[ G.R. No.

244045, June 16, 2020 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JERRY SAPLA Y GUERRERO A.K.A. ERIC
SALIBAD Y MALLARI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DECISION

CRIME CHARGED RTC CA SC

charged with violation of Section
5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
RTC rendered its Affirmed the RTC 's ACQUITTED of the
possession, control and custody four Decision convicting Decision with crime charged on the
(4) bricks of marijuana leaves, a accused-appellant Sapla modifications. ground of reasonable
dangerous [drug], with a total net for violating Section 5 of doubt, and
weight of 3,9563.111 grams and R.A. 9165. The CA found that is ORDERED
transport in transit through a although the search IMMEDIATELY
passenger [jeepney] with Plate No. and seizure conducted RELEASED from
AYA 270 the said marijuana without on accused-appellant detention unless he is
license, permit or authority from any Sapla was without a being lawfully held for
appropriate government entity or search warrant, the another cause. Let an
agency. same was lawful as it entry of final
was a valid judgment be issued
warrantless search of immediately.
a moving vehicle. The
CA held that the
essential requisite of
probable cause was
present, justifying the
warrantless search
and seizure.

The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings.

The Prosecution presented three (3) police officers as its witnesses, namely: Mabiasan Lito Labbutan
and Ngoslab

The evidence for the Prosecution established that on 10 January 2014, at around 11:30 in the morning, an
officer on duty at the RPSB office received a phone call from a concerned citizen, who informed the said
office that a certain male individual [would] be transpiring marijuana from Kalinga and into the
Province of Isabela. PO2 Mabiasan then relayed the information to their deputy commander, PSI Ngoslab,
who subsequently called KPPO-PAIDSOTG for a possible joint operation. Thereafter, as a standard operating
procedure in drug operations, PO3 Labbutan, an operative of KPPO-PAIDSOTG, coordinated with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Afterwards, the chief of KPPO-PAIDSOTG, PSI Baltazar
Lingbawan (hereinafter referred to as PSI Lingbawan), briefed his operatives on the said information. Later
on, the said operatives of KPPO-PAIDSOTG arrived at the RPSB. PSI Ngoslab immediately organized a team
and as its team leader, assigned PO2 Mabiasan as the seizing officer, PO3 Labbutan as the arresting officer,
while the rest of the police officers would provide security and backup. The said officers then proceeded to
the Talaca detachment.
At around 1:00 in the afternoon, the RPSB hotline received a text message which stated that the
subject male person who [would] transport marijuana [was] wearing a collared white shirt with green
stripes, red ball cap, and [was] carrying a blue sack on board a passenger jeepney, with plate number
AYA 270 bound for Roxas, Isabela. Subsequently, a joint checkpoint was strategically organized at the
Talaca command post.

The passenger jeepney then arrived at around 1:20 in the afternoon, wherein the police officers at the Talaca
checkpoint flagged down the said vehicle and told its driver to park on the side of the road. Officers Labbutan
and Mabiasan approached the jeepney and saw accused-appellant Sapla] seated at the rear side of the vehicle.
The police officers asked if he was the owner of the blue sack in front of him, which the latter answered in the
affirmative. The said officers then requested to open the blue sack. After Sapla opened the sack, officers
Labbutan and Mabiasan saw four (4) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves, wrapped in newspaper and
an old calendar. PO3 Labbutan subsequently arrested Sapla, informed him of the cause of his arrest and his
constitutional rights in [the] Ilocano dialect. PO2 Mabiasan further searchedand found one (I) LG cellular
phone unit. Thereafter, PO2 Mabiasan seized the four (4) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves and
brought [them] to their office at the Talaca detachment for proper markings.

At the RPSB's office, PO2 Mabiasan took photographs and conducted an inventory of the seized items, one (1)
blue sack and four (4) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves, wherein the same officer placed his
signature on the said items. Also, the actual conduct of inventory was witnessed by Sapla, and by the
following: 1) Joan K. Balneg from the Department of Justice; 2) Victor Fontanilla, an elected barangay official;
and 3) Geraldine G. Dumalig, as media representative. Thereafter, PO3 Labbutan brought the Sapla at the
KPPO-PAIDSOTG Provincial Crime Laboratory Office at Camp Juan M. Duyan for further investigation.

At the said office, PO2 Mabiasan personally turned over the seized items to the investigator of the case,
PO2 Alexander Oman (hereinafter referred to as PO2 Oman), for custody, safekeeping and proper
disposition. Also, PSI Lingbawan wrote a letter addressed to the Provincial Chief, which requested that a
chemistry examination be conducted on the seized items. The said initial examination revealed that the
specimens "A-1" to "A-4" with a total net weight of 3,9563.111 grams, yielded positive results for the
presence of marijuana, a dangerous drug

Sapla tried to conceal his true identity by using a fictitious name - Eric Mallari Salibad. However, investigators
were able to contact Sapla's sister, who duly informed the said investigators that Sapla's real name is Jerry
Guerrero Sapla.

Defense presented Sapla as its sole witness.

 denied the charges against him and instead, offered a different version of the incident.

 He claimed that on 8 January 2014, he went to Tabuk City to visit a certain relative named Tony Sibal.

 Two (2) days later, [accused-appellant Sapla] boarded a jeepney, and left for Roxas, Isabela to visit
his nephew. Upon reaching Talaca checkpoint, police officers flagged down the said jeepney in order
to check its passenger[s'] baggages and cargoes.

 The police officers then found marijuana inside a sack and were looking for a person who wore
fatigue pants at that time. From the three (3) passengers who wore fatigue pants, the said police
officers identified him as the owner of the marijuana found inside the sack.

 Sapla denied ownership of the marijuana, and asserted that he had no baggage at that time.
Thereafter, the police officers arrested Sapla and brought him to the Talaca barracks, wherein the
sack and marijuana bricks were shown to him.
The Ruling of the RTC

RTC rendered its Decision convicting accused-appellant Sapla for violating Section 5 of R.A. 9165.

The Ruling of the CA

Affirmed the RTC 's Decision with modifications.

The CA found that although the search and seizure conducted on accused-appellant Sapla was without
a search warrant, the same was lawful as it was a valid warrantless search of a moving vehicle. The CA
held that the essential requisite of probable cause was present, justifying the warrantless search and
seizure.

The Issue

WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID SEARCH AND SEIZURE CONDUCTED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS. (NO)

The Court's Ruling

ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY
RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final
judgment be issued immediately.

Valid Warrantless Searches and Seizures

There are, however, instances wherein searches are reasonable even in the absence of a search warrant,
taking into account the "uniqueness of circumstances involved including the purpose of the search or seizure,
the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place
or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.

The known jurisprudential instances of reasonable warrantless searches and seizures are:

(1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

(2) seizure of evidence in plain view;

(3) search of a moving vehicle;

(4) consented warrantless search;

(5) customs search;

(6) stop and frisk; and

(7) exigent and emergency circumstances

Search of a Moving Vehicle and its Non-Applicability in the Instant Case

The Court finds error in the CA's holding that the search conducted in the instant case is a search of a moving
vehicle. The situation presented in the instant case cannot be considered as a search of a moving vehicle.
In Comprado, a confidential informant (CI) sent a text message to the authorities as regards an alleged courier
of marijuana who had in his possession a backpack containing marijuana and would be traveling from
Bukidnon to Cagayan de Oro City. The CI eventually called the authorities and informed them that the alleged
drug courier had boarded a bus with body number 2646 and plate number KVP 988 bound for Cagayan de
Oro City. The CI added that the man would be carrying a backpack in black and violet colors with the marking
"Lowe Alpine." With this information, the police officers put up a checkpoint, just as what the authorities did
in the instant case. Afterwards, upon seeing the bus bearing the said body and plate numbers approaching the
checkpoint, again similar to the instant case, the said vehicle was flagged down. The police officers boarded
the bus and saw a man matching the description given to them by the CI. The man was seated at the back of
the bus with a backpack placed on his lap. The man was asked to open the bag. When the accused agreed to
do so, the police officers saw a transparent cellophane containing dried marijuana leaves.

In Comprado, the Court held that the search conducted "could not be classified as a search of a moving
vehicle. In this particular type of search, the vehicle is the target and not a specific person." The Court added
that "in search of a moving vehicle, the vehicle was intentionally used as a means to transport illegal items. It
is worthy to note that the information relayed to the police officers was that a passenger of that particular bus
was carrying marijuana such that when the police officers boarded the bus, they searched the bag of the
person matching the description given by their informant and not the cargo or contents of the said bus."

Applying the foregoing to the instant case, it cannot be seriously disputed that the target of the search
conducted was not the passenger jeepney boarded by accused-appellant Sapla nor the cargo or contents of
the said vehicle. The target of the search was the person who matched the description given by the person
who called the RPSB Hotline, i.e., the person wearing a collared white shirt with green stripes, red ball cap,
and carrying a blue sack.

As explained in Comprado, "to extend to such breadth the scope of searches on moving vehicles would open
the floodgates to unbridled warrantless searches which can be conducted by the mere expedient of waiting
for the target person to ride a motor vehicle, setting up a checkpoint along the route of that vehicle, and then
stopping such vehicle when it arrives at the checkpoint in order to search the target person. "Therefore, the
search conducted in the instant case cannot be characterized as a search of a moving vehicle.

Does the mere reception of a text message from an anonymous person suffice to create probable
cause that enables the authorities to conduct an extensive and intrusive search without a search
warrant? The answer is a resounding no.

The Court has already held with unequivocal clarity that in situations involving warrantless searches
and seizures, "law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of confidential or tipped information. 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 Absence of Probable Cause in the Instant Case

Applying the foregoing discussion in the instant case, to reiterate, the police merely adopted the unverified
and unsubstantiated suspicion of another person, i.e., the person who sent the text through the RPSB Hotline.
Apart from the information passed on to them, the police simply had no reason to reasonably believe that the
passenger vehicle contained an item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.

Further, it does not escape the attention of the Court that, as testified to by PSI Ngoslab on cross-
examination, the mobile phone which received the anonymous person's text message was not even an
official government issued phone. From the records of the case, it is unclear as to who owned or
possessed the said phone used as the supposed official hotline of the RPSB Office. Furthermore, PSI
Ngoslab testified that he was not even sure whether the said official hotline still existed.
The Inapplicability of The Other Instances of Reasonable Warrantless Searches and Seizures

The search conducted on accused-appellant Sapla was not incidental to a lawful arrest. Such requires a lawful
arrest that precedes the search, which is not the case here. Further, the prosecution has not alleged and
proven that there was a seizure of evidence in plain view, that it was a customs search, and that there were
exigent and emergency circumstances that warranted a warrantless search.

Neither can the search conducted on accused-appellant Sapla be considered a valid stop and
frisk search. The Court has explained that stop and frisk searches refer to 'the act of a police officer to stop a
citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband.

Invalid Consented Warrantless Search

In the instant case, the totality of the evidence presented convinces the Court that accused-appellant
Sapla's apparent consent to the search conducted by the police was not unequivocal, specific,
intelligently given, and unattended by duress or coercion. It cannot be seriously denied that accused-
appellant Sapla was subjected to a coercive environment, considering that he was confronted by several
armed police officers in a checkpoint.