PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

JERRY SAPLA y GUERRERO

G.R NO. 244045
16 JUNE 2020

FACTS:
At around 11:30 in the morning of 10 January 2014, an officer on duty at
the Regional Public Safety Batallion (RPSB) Office at Tabuk City received a phone
call from a concerned citizen, who informed the said office that a certain male
individual would be transporting marijuana from Kalinga and into the Province of
Isabela.
On the basis of the tipped information, a joint drug operation with the
PDEA was organized and the police officers led by PSI Ngoslab 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 No. AYA 270 bound for Roxas,
Isabela. Subsequently, a joint checkpoint was strategically organized at the Talaca
command post.
At around 1:20 in the afternoon, the passenger jeepney then arrived. The
police officers at the Talaca checkpoint flagged down the said vehicle and told its
driver to park on the side of the road. Police Officers Labbutan and Mabiasan
approached the jeepney and saw Sapla seated at the rear side of the vehicle.
When asked if he was the owner of the blue sack in front of him, Sapla answered
in the affirmative. When PO3 Mabiasan asked Sapla to open the sack, Sapla
hesitated and it was only after a while that he voluntarily opened the sack.
Four (4) bricks of dried marijuana leaves, wrapped in newspaper and old
calendar were found by the police officers inside the blue sack. After informing
him of the cause of his arrest and of his constitutional right, Sapla was arrested
and the 4 bricks of dried marijuana leaves were seized.
Consequently, Sapla was charged for Violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165.
The RTC found the Sapla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
On appeal, The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC. It
found that the search and seizure conducted on the accused-appellant Sapla was
a valid warrantless search of a moving vehicle. The CA held that the information
received through the RPSB Hotline via text message from an anonymous person
sufficiently engendered probable cause of the part of the authorities to conduct
an intrusive search. It further found that the illegal drugs were discovered as a
result of a consented search hence, admissible in evidence.

ISSUES:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A
MOVING VEHICLE.

1
 II. WHETHER OR NOT THE SHEER UNVERIFIED INFORMATION FROM AN
ANONYMOUS INFORMANT JUSTIFIES THE INTRUSIVE SEARCH
CONDUCTED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS.
III. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A CONSENTED SEARCH.

RULING:
I. NO. In search of a moving vehicle, the vehicle is the target and not a
specific person. In the instant case, the target of the search conducted was not
the passenger jeepney boarded by the accused-appellant Sapla nor the cargo or
contents of the 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.
Therefore, the search conducted in the instant case cannot be
characterized as a search of a moving vehicle.

II. NO. As a rule, warrantless search of a moving vehicle is limited to routine

checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection. An
extensive search of a vehicle is permissible only when 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 an item, article
or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.
A more extensive and intrusive search that goes beyond a mere visual
search of the vehicle necessitates probable cause on the part of the
apprehending officers.
The Court has already held with unequivocal clarity that in situations
involving warrantless search 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.
In the instant case, the accused was just a passenger carrying his bag.
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.
Therefore, with the glaring absence of probable cause that justifies an
intrusive warrantless search, considering that the police officers failed to rely on
their personal knowledge and depended solely on an unverified an anonymous
tip, the warrantless search conducted on accused-appellant Sapla was an invalid
and unlawful search of a moving vehicle.

III. NO. There can only be an effective waiver of right against unreasonable
searches and seizures if the following requisites are present:

2
 1. It must appear that the right exist;
2. The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of
the existence of such right; and
3. Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
The consent to a warrantless search and seizure must be unequivocal,
specific, intelligently given and unattended by duress or coercion. Mere passive
conformity to the warrantless search is only an implied acquiescence which
does not amount to consent and that the presence of a coercive environment
negates the claim of 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 that accused-appellant
Sapla was subjected to a coercive environment, considering that he was
confronted by several armed police officers in a checkpoint.
At most, accused-appellant Sapla’s alleged act of opening the blue sack was
mere passive conformity to a warrantless search conducted in a coercive and
intimidating environment. Hence, the search conducted is not a valid consented
search.
The necessary and inescapable consequence of the illegality of the search
and seizure conducted by the police in the instant case is the inadmissibility of
the drug specimens retrieved under the Exclusionary Rule or Fruit of the
Poisonous Tree Doctrine.