Q. No. 8 | Political Law
"A public transport bus was stopped by the police at a checkpoint. All male passengers
were asked to disembark while all female passengers were requested to remain seated. Paul, a police officer, then boarded the bus and upon cursory inspection, noticed a suspicious bulging black bag at the rear of the bus.
Paul lifted the bag and found it to be heavy for its size. Severino, the owner of the bag and a non-paying passenger, consented to have it opened and it was revealed that the bag contained a firearm and a live grenade.
When Severino failed to produce proof of his authority to carry firearms and explosives, he was arrested and eventually
charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms and Explosives. Severino now contends that the search was unreasonable and unconstitutional as it was done without a search warrant.
Is Severino correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The foundation of every constitutional government is the existence of a Bill of Rights affording its citizens a set of rights, which if taken away, spells death to democracy and renders the supposed democratic government inutile. Further, among those included in the Bill of Rights, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure occupies a much higher position than any other right, except maybe the right to life, liberty, and property.
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Any deviation from this rule is heavily construed against the government.
Nonetheless, search and seizure even without a warrant is allowed in certain exceptional circumstances.
One such exception is the "warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles," which is an acknowledgment of the obvious facts that a search warrant cannot be effectively enforced against an object that is so easy to spirit away from the jurisdiction of the court issuing the warrant. To be valid, the search should be limited to a visual inspection of the vehicle.
[...] a recognized variant of the search of moving vehicles is the setting up of military or police checkpoints, which are not violative of the right against unreasonable searches when limited to non-incursive searches. A more extensive search, however, requires that the police authorities have probable cause to believe that a more thorough search would lead to the discovery of items or effects involved in a crime. Thus:
A variant of searching moving vehicles without a warrant may entail the setup of military or police checkpoints as in this case which, based on jurisprudence, are not illegal per se for as long as its necessity is justified by the exigencies of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists. Case law further states that routine inspections in checkpoints are not regarded as violative of an individual's right against unreasonable searches, and thus, permissible, if limited to the following:
(a) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds; (b) simply looks into a vehicle; (c) flashes a light therein without opening the car's doors; (d) where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search; (e) where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection; and (f) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.
It is well to clarify, however, that routine inspections do not give police officers carte blanche discretion to conduct warrantless searches in the absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search as opposed to a mere routine inspection such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched. (Emphasis supplied)
Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances that could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the items, articles, or objects sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law are in the place to be searched. To satisfy the probable cause requirement in a checkpoint search scenario, the accused must be performing an overtly physical act that would create strong suspicion in the minds of the arresting officers that the accused had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.
People v. Señarosa, G.R. No. 239480. September 28, 2022.
Read the full text @
Comments