The warrantless search and seizure of the appellants and the box containing marijuana they left on a bus was valid. Warrantless searches of moving vehicles are allowed due to the impracticality of obtaining a warrant. The PDEA agents had reasonable suspicion to search based on a tip and the appellants' suspicious behavior of trying to flee.
The warrantless search and seizure of the appellants and the box containing marijuana they left on a bus was valid. Warrantless searches of moving vehicles are allowed due to the impracticality of obtaining a warrant. The PDEA agents had reasonable suspicion to search based on a tip and the appellants' suspicious behavior of trying to flee.
The warrantless search and seizure of the appellants and the box containing marijuana they left on a bus was valid. Warrantless searches of moving vehicles are allowed due to the impracticality of obtaining a warrant. The PDEA agents had reasonable suspicion to search based on a tip and the appellants' suspicious behavior of trying to flee.
The warrantless search and seizure of the appellants and the box containing marijuana they left on a bus was valid. Warrantless searches of moving vehicles are allowed due to the impracticality of obtaining a warrant. The PDEA agents had reasonable suspicion to search based on a tip and the appellants' suspicious behavior of trying to flee.
Facts: Appellants Regie Breis y Alvarado (Breis) and Gary Yumol y Tuazon (Yumol) were charged with violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165). That in the afternoon of February 10, 2010, the above-named accused, in conspiracy with each other, have in their possession, custody and control marijuana with a recorded net weight of 8,181 grams wrapped in plastic and further wrapped with brown packaging tape and placed inside a brown box, without the authority of law and knowing fully well that said dried marijuana leaves/fruiting tops are dangerous drugs, in violation of the afore-cited provisions of law. According to the defense, accused, both construction workers, left Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga for Baguio at around 6:00 o'clock AM of February 9, 2010 to visit a certain Edwin Garcia, an acquaintance and a resident of Loakan, Baguio City. Edwin Garcia had offered the accused to be upholsterers in his upholstery business way back in December of 2008. At around 11:00 o'clock AM, the accused arrived in Baguio City and because they did not know the exact address and contact number of Edwin Garcia, they took a chance and decided to take a cab to Loakan. However, they failed to find Garcia's house despite asking the residents of Loakan. So, they decided to go back to the Genesis bus terminal and go back home to Pampanga. They were already boarded when accused Yumol stepped out to buy a bottle of water. Thereafter, Mangili went near accused Breis and uttered something inaudible, and thinking that the seat he was occupying was Mangili's, accused Breis stood up to give up his seat but instead Mangili pushed him and accused Breis asked what seems to be the problem. Mangili then asked if he owns the box under the seat in front of his, Breis replied in the negative. Mangili then opened the box, got one of the bricks contained therein, sliced the same and saw that it was marijuana. Accused Breis, infuriated, retorted that the accusation is baseless and malicious. Mangili then summoned his companions and they dragged accused Breis outside the bus when suddenly, accused Yumol arrived and inquired what the commotion was all about. The group then asked if he (Yumol) was a companion of accused Breis and when he answered positively, Yumol was likewise apprehended. The trial court gave credence to the prosecution's version, upholding the presumption of regularity in favor of the PDEA agents and finding no evil or ill-motive on their part. The trial court also held that the warrantless search and seizure and the warrantless arrest of appellants were valid. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 were satisfied. Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure and the warrantless arrest of appellants were valid.
Ruling: Yes. It is well settled that no arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. Further, any evidence obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. However, the rule against warrantless searches and seizures admits of exceptions, such as the search of moving vehicles. Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are allowed in recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. Peace officers in such cases, however, are limited to routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains a[n] item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction. In the present case, the vehicle that carried the prohibited drugs was about to leave. The PDEA agents made a judgment call to act fast, as time was of the essence. The team arrived at the terminal around 15 minutes before the bus was scheduled to depart. Upon boarding the bus, IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta identified two men fitting the description given by the informant in possession of a box described by the informant to contain marijuana. Moreover, the PDEA agents had reasonable suspicion based on appellants' behavior that the latter were probably committing a crime. Appellants' act of standing up to leave the bus under different circumstances may be natural; but it is not so in this case. Indeed, as observed by the PDEA agents, appellants were not simply passengers carrying a box in a bus. They engaged in suspicious behavior when they tried to flee after IO1 Mangili showed interest in their box and identified himself as a PDEA agent. Worse, in his attempt at flight, Breis pushed IO1 Mangili, already knowing that the latter was a PDEA agent. This brazen act on the part of Breis only cemented the belief that appellants were likely hiding a wrongdoing and avoiding capture by law enforcers. Breis' commission of a crime in view of, and against IO1 Mangili, and proclivity for resorting to acts of violence further justify the warrantless search of appellants. Applied analogously, there is no objectionable warrantless search and seizure of the box of marijuana abandoned in the bus by appellants. Given the above discussion, it is readily apparent that the search in this case is valid.
