GARCIA, DOREEN YSABELLE E.
affirmation of the complainant and
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
CABALLES V CA
PETITIONER: Rudy Caballes y Taio
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals, and
The People of the Philippines
CITATION: 373 SCRA 221 (G.R. No. 136292)
PROMUL. DATE: January 15, 2002
PONENTE: Puno, J.
FACTS
 June 28, 1989, 9:15PM – Sgt. Victorina Noceja
and Pat. Alex Castro, on routine patrol in Brgy.
Sampalucan, Pagsanjan, Laguna
o They spotted a passenger unusually
covered in “kakwati” leaves.
o Suspected that said jeep was loaded with
smuggled goods, they flagged it down.
The driver was Caballes.
o With Caballes’ consent, the police officers
checked the cargo and found:
 bundles of 3.08 mm
aluminum/galvanized conductor
wires exclusively owned by
National Power Corporation
(NPC), weighing 700kg and
amounting to PhP 55,244.45.
o Caballes said they from Cavinti.
o He was brought to Pagsanjan Police
Station. Danilo Cabale took pictures of the
appellant and the jeep loaded with the
wires which were turned over to the Police
Station Commander of Pagsanjan,
Laguna.
o Caballes was incarcerated for 7 days in
the Municipal Jail.
 APPELLANT’S DEFENSE: denial and alibi.
o Testified that he was a NARCOM civilian
agent since January 1988 although his ID
has already expired
o The cables were owned by the jeep
owner, Resty Fernandez.
 RTC: Guilty of theft of property PhP 55, 244.45.
 CA: Affirmed the decision of CA.
 ISSUES:
o WON the warrantless search and seizure
made by the police was valid
o WON the evidence obtained thereof was
admissible
 RELATED LAW:
o Section 2, Art III, Consti:
 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
the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
o EXCEPTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
PROSCRIPTIONS AGAINST
WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND
SEIZURES:
 Warrantless search incidental to a
lawful arrest recognized under
Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court and by prevailing
jurisprudence
 seizure of evidence in plain view
 search of moving vehicles
 consented warrantless search
 customs search
 stop and frisk situations (Terry
search)
 exigent and emergency
circumstances.
 HELD:
o No. The evidence on record are
insufficient to sustain petitioner’s
conviction. His guilt can only be
established without violating the
constitutional right of the accused against
unreasonable search and seizure.
WHEREFORE, the impugned decision is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and
accused Rudy Caballes is hereby
ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
 RATIONALE:
o I. SEARCH OF A MOVING VEHICLE
 When a vehicle is stopped and
subjected to an extensive search,
such a warrantless search would
be constitutionally permissible
only if the officers conducting the
search have reasonable or
probable cause to believe, before
the search, that either the motorist
is a law-offender or they will find
the instrumentality or evidence
pertaining to a crime in the vehicle
to be searched.
 We hold that the fact that the
vehicle looked suspicious simply
because it is not common for such
to be covered with kakawati leaves
does not constitute “probable
cause” as would justify the
conduct of a search without a
warrant.
o II. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
 Jurisprudence is to the effect that
an object is in plain view if the
object itself is plainly exposed to
sight. Where the object seized was
inside a closed package, the
object itself is not in plain view and
therefore cannot be seized without
a warrant. However, if the package
proclaims its contents, whether by
its distinctive configuration, its
transparency, or if its contents are
 obvious to an observer, then the for his consent; they
contents are in plain view and may were declaring to him that they
be seized. In other words, if the will look inside his vehicle.
package is such that an
experienced observer could infer
from its appearance that it
contains the prohibited article,
then the article is deemed in plain
view. It must be immediately
apparent to the police that the
items that they observe may be
evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure.
 It is clear from the records of this
case that the cable wires were not
exposed to sight because they
were placed in sacks and covered
with leaves. The articles were
neither transparent nor
immediately apparent to the police
authorities. In such a case, it has
been held that the object is not in
plain view which could have
justified mere seizure of the
articles without further search.
o III. CONSENTED SEARCH
 Petitioner contends that the
statement of Sgt. Victorino Noceja
that he checked the vehicle “with
the consent of the accused” is too
vague to prove that petitioner
consented to the search. He
claims that there is no specific
statement as to how the consent
was asked and how it was given,
nor the specific words spoken by
petitioner indicating his alleged
“consent.” At most, there was only
an implied acquiescence, a mere
passive conformity, which is no
“consent” at all within the purview
of the constitutional guarantee.
 In the case at bar, the evidence is
lacking that the petitioner
intentionally surrendered his right
against unreasonable
searches. The manner by which
the two police officers allegedly
obtained the consent of petitioner
for them to conduct the search
leaves much to be desired. When
petitioner's vehicle was flagged
down, Sgt. Noceja approached
petitioner and “told him I will
look at the contents of his
vehicle and he answered in the
positive.”
 For all intents and purposes, they
were informing, nay,
imposing upon herein petitioner
that they will search his vehicle.
The “consent” given under
intimidating or coercive
circumstances is no consent within
the purview of the constitutional
guaranty. In the case of herein
petitioner, the statements of the
police officers were not asking