PEOPLE v.

SANTILLAN

PRINCIPLES
 A tip

FACTS:

The Regional Public Safety Batallion (RPSB) received a text message describing that a
person on board a passenger jeepney would transport marijuana. The police officers
organized a checkpoint and flagged down the jeepney. The police officers requested the
described passenger, Eric Sapla, to open his sack. It contained 4 bricks of marijuana leaves.
The police officer brought it to their office or proper markings.

Sapla was arrested and charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for the
possession, control, and custody of marijuana leaves. Sapla denied ownership of the
marijuana and asserted that he had no baggage at that time.

RTC Decision:

Sapla was convicted of the crime charged with the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He was
accused to pay the fine of P5M.

CA Decision:

CA affirmed the RTC Decision with modifications. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and to pay P1M. The CA ruled that it was a valid warrantless search of a
moving vehicle and probable cause was present, justifying the warrantless search and
seizure.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a valid warrantless search and seizure.

RULING:

The SC ordered the immediate release of Eric Sapla.

I. The Constitutional Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

Article 3, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. 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 is strictly construed against the government.

II. Valid warrantless searches and seizures

a. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
b. Seizure of evidence in plain view
c. Search of a moving vehicle
d. Consented warrantless search
e. Customs search
f. Customs search
 g. Stop and frisk
h. Exigent and emergency circumstances

III. Search of a Moving Vehicle and its Non-applicability in the Case

The case cannot be considered as a search of a moving vehicle.

A search of a moving vehicle is only limited to routine checks where the examination of the
vehicle is limited to visual inspection.

People v. Comprado

PROBLEM: A confidential informant sent a text message to the authorities as regards an

alleged courier of marijuana. The police officers put up a checkpoint and the vehicle was
flagged down.

ANSWER: It could not be classified as a search of a moving vehicle.

In a search of a moving vehicle, the vehicle, which was intentionally used as a means to
transport illegal items, is the target and not a specific person.

In this case, the target of the search conducted was the bag of the person matching the
description given by the informant and not the cargo or contents of the said bus.

Therefore, the search conducted could not be classified as a search of a moving vehicle.

THE CASE: In the instant case, the target of the search conducted was not the passenger
jeepney boarded by Sapla nor the cargo or contents of the said vehicle. The target of the
search was the person.

IV. Probable Cause as an Indispensable Requirement for an Extensive and Intrusive

Warrantless Search of a Moving Vehicle

People v. Manago

Searching moving vehicles without warrant may entail the setting up of military or police
checkpoints. The setting up of checkpoints is 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.

GENERAL RULE
The search of moving vehicles must be limited to:
1. where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicles which is parked
on the public fair grounds
2. where the officer simply looks into a vehicle
3. where the officer flashes light therein without opening the car’s doors
4. where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search
5. where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to visual search or visual inspection
6. where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area

EXCEPTION
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.
Probable cause – there is the existence of such facts and circumstances which 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 is in the place to be searched.

V. Sheer Unverified Information from an Anonymous Informant does not engender

probable case on the part of the authorities that warrants an extensive and intrusive
search of a moving vehicle

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.

Aguilar v. Texas -

The search warrant for narcotics in the petitioner’s home based on “reliable information” was
invalid.

To engender a probable cause, an informant’s tip should satisfy the two tests: 1) the
informant’s “basis of knowledge” must be revealed and 2) there must be sufficient facts to
establish either the informant’s “veracity” or the “reliability” of the informant’s report.

Illinois v. Gates +

There was a probable cause when the police received an anonymous letter alleging that the
respondent was engaged in selling drugs and the car would be loaded with drugs.

Based on the totality of circumstances test, a tipped information may engender probable
cause when corroborated by independent police work. In this case, the anonymous letter
was not the basis alone for the determination of probable cause.

People v. Aminnudin -

Aminnudin was on board a vessel. After an informer pointed Aminnudin to be a carrier of

marijuana, the police officers inspected the passenger’s bag loaded with marijuana.

The Court held that the search and seizure based on a confidential tip was illegal. The Court
declared that Aminnudin was not committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to
do so or that he had just done so. He was like any of the other passengers innocently
disembarking from the vessel.

People v. Cuizon -

Pua and Lee were arrested by the police officers based on the tip that the NBI agents
purportedly received.

The Court characterized that the tip received by the authorities from an anonymous
informant was a hearsay information that cannot engender probable cause.

People v. Encinada -

The authorities, based on an informant’s tip, stopped the tricycle occupied by the accused
and asked him to alight. The authorities found a package of marijuana inserted between the
2 strapped plastic baby chairs.
The Court described it as a raw intelligence, which was not enough to justify the warrantless
search and seizure.

The prosecution did not show any suspicious behavior when the appellant disembarked from
the vehicle. There was no act or fact demonstrating a felonious enterprise.

People v. Aruta -

Aling Rosa was pointed out by an informant to have carried marijuana leaves in her bag.

The Court ruled that the search conducted on the accused based solely on the pointing
finger of the informant was a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure.

The accused was singled out as the subject. There was no reason whatsoever for the
authorities to suspect the accused that she was committing a crime, except for the pointing
finger of the informant.

People v. Coaged +

Although the police officers received an information from an unidentified civilian informer, the
police officers used their senses and observed fats that led to their suspicion. The accused
had a reddish eye and walked in a swaying manner. Based on their experience, the actions
were indicative of a person who uses dangerous and illicit drugs.

The Court held that the police officers should not adopt the suspicion initiated by another
person. The police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts
leading to the suspicion of an illicit act, and not merely rely on the information passed on to
him or her.

Veridiano v. People -

The police chanced upon the accused inside the jeepney after receiving an information from
a concerned citizen. The police flagged down the jeepney and asked the passengers to
disembark. The passengers were instructed to raise their t-shirts for possible concealed
weapons. A marijuana was recovered from the accused.

The Court held that the warrantless search was invalid. The accused was a mere passenger
in a jeepney who did not exhibit any act that would give police officers reasonable suspicion
to believe that he had drugs in his possession. The police officers had no basis or personal
knowledge that would reasonably allow them to infer anything suspicious.

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.

People v. Comprado -

The accused was a passenger carrying his bag inside the jeepney and was apprehended.

The Court held that the sole information relayed by an informant was not sufficient to incite a
genuine reason to conduct an intrusive search on the accused. There was no over physical
act that could be properly attributed to the accused as to arouse suspicion in the minds of
the arresting officers that he had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a
crime.

There should be a presence of more than one seemingly innocent activity from which, taken,
together, warranted a reasonable inference of criminal activity.

People v. Yanson -

The police officers received a radio message about a silver gray pickup transporting a
marijuana. The vehicle was flagged down at a checkpoint and 2 sacks of marijuana were
discovered beside the engine.

The Court held that bare suspicion is never enough to warrant probable cause. Probable
cause requires the existence of a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.

Search and seizure and arrests should not be exclusively based on the initial tips. It should
be progressively heightened by other factors, such as the accused’s failure to produce
identifying documents, papers pertinent to the items they were carrying, or their display of
suspicious behavior upon being approached.

People v. Gardon-Mentoy -

An unidentified informant shared information to the police officers regarding the

transportation of drugs o board a shuttle van. The van was flagged down by the authorities
and conducted a warrantless search. A marijuana was found.

The Court ruled that the tip, in the absence of other circumstances that would confirm their
suspicion coming to the knowledge of the searching or arresting officer, was not yet
actionable for purposes of effecting an arrest or conducting a search.

Saluday v. People +

A bus inspection at a military checkpoint was conducted. One of the passengers’ bag was
lifted and a firearm was revealed inside. The accused had a very suspicious looks.

The Court ruled that a reasonable search of a bus, while in transit, must observe the
following conditions (DIPP was used as basis in the Sapla Case):
1. The manner of the search must be least intrusive
a. SAPLA CASE – the search was extensive reaching inside the contents of the
blue sack that he allegedly possessed.
2. The search must not be discriminatory
a. The search was directed exclusively towards Sapla. It was discriminatory. In
Saluday case, the bags of other passengers were also inspected
3. As to the purpose, it must be confined to ensuring public safety
a. No allegation that the search was conducted with the intent of ensuring public
safety. At most, the purpose of the search was to apprehend Sapla, based on
an anonymous informant.
4. The courts must be convinced that precautionary measures were in place to ensure
that no evidence was planted.
a. The inventory, photographing, and marking of the evience were not
immediately conducted after the apprehension at the scene of the incident.

People v. Tangliben +
A person carrying a red bag was acting suspiciously. When requested by the authorities to
open the bag, marijuana leaves were found.

The Court held that the police officers did not rest solely on the tipped information. The
police officers, using their own personal observation, saw that the accused was acting
suspiciously. The overt acts and other circumstances personally observed by the police
engendered great suspicion.

People v. Malmstdedt +

Police officers observed that there was a bulge on the accused’s waist. The police officer
then asked accused’s ID papers which he failed to provide. He possessed hashish – a
derivative of marijuana. A warrantless arrest was conducted.

The Court held that the probable cause justifying the warrantless search was based on the
personal observations of the authorities and not solely on the tipped information.

People v. Tuazon +

The court held that there was a valid warrantless search when the authorities personally saw
a gun tucked on the accused’s waist. The accused was not able to produce any pertinent
document related to the firearm. The search was conducted upon a visual search of a motor
vehicle. The authorities did not solely rely on the confidential information.

People v. Quebral +

The court held that the warrantless arrest was valid. The police officers did not just rely on
the informer’s report about two men and a woman on board a jeep would deliver a shabu. In
this case a surveillance operation was made and they personally saw the accused handing
out an envelope the accused – included in the drug’s watch list.

People v. Saycon +

The court held that the authorities had probable cause in conducting intrusive search. The
probable cause was not engendered solely by the confidential information. There was a prior
test-buy conducted to confirm that the accused was engaged in selling drugs.

Manalili v. CA and People +

There was a valid warrantless search. The police observed that the accused had reddish
eyes and waled in a swaying manner. He tried to avoid the policemen and tried to resist. The
accused has suspicious actuations. The area was also a haven of drugs.

People v. Solayao +

There was a valid warrantless search and seizure. The man fled after seeing the police. His
flight added to the suspicion. In his possession was an unlicensed “homemade firearm.”

People v. Lo Ho Wing +

Apart from the anonymous tip, deep penetration agents were recruited to infiltrate the crime
syndicate. An undercover agent confirmed the plan of the accused.
Bagista and Maspil Jr. cases were erroneously ruled. In that case, the warrantless search
was upheld based on the sole tip given by anonymous informant.

VI. Absence of Probable Cause in the Case

The police officer did not even endeavor to inquire how the stranger gathered the
information. They did not even ascertain in any manner that the stranger was credible.
Moreover, the authorities did not even personally receive and examine the anonymous text
message. The Phone was not even an official government-issued phone.

VII. The Inapplicability of the Other Instances of Reasonable Warrantless Searches and
Seizures

The search was not incidental to a lawful arrest. It requires a lawful arrest that precedes the
search (which is not the case)

The search was not a stop and frisk. It refers to searches where the police officers stop a
citizen on street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapons or contraband. It is only limited to
protective search of outer clothing for weapons. In this case, the police officers went beyond
the protective search of outer clothing.

A genuine reason must exist in conducting stop and frisk, such as the police officer’s
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has
weapons concealed about him.

VIII. Invalid Consented Warrantless Search

In an effective waiver of rights against unreasonable searches and seizure, the following
requisites must be present:

1. It must appear that the rights 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.

General Rule: The courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of
fundamental constitutional rights. The fact that the person failed to object to a search does
not amount to permission.

Mere passive conformity to the warrantless search is only an implied acquiescence which
does not amount to consent and the presence of a coercive environment negates the claim.
In this case, Sapla was surrounded by the police officers. He was subjected to a coercive
environment.

IX. Exclusionary Rule or Fruit of Posinous Tree Doctrine

The consequence of the illegality of the search and seizure is the inadmissibility of the drugs
specimen.

Based on the Exclusionary Rule, evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of
unreasonable search should be excluded for being a fruit of poisonous tree.