People vs Jerry Sapla y Guerrero, GR No.

244045, June 16, 2020

Doctrine:

Evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of unreasonable searches

and seizures is deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In other words, evidence obtained from
unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose in any proceeding.

FACTS:

The Accused-appellant in this case Jerry Sapla y Guerrero a.k.a. Eric Salibad
y Mallari was charged of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, otherwise
known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002”.

On January 10, 2014, a tipped information (via a text message) from an

anonymous person was received by the authorities through the duty on
guard of the Regional Public Safety Battalion Hotline informing the said office
that a certain male individual would be transporting marijuana from Kalinga
and into the Province of Isabela. They then organized a team and proceeded
to the Talaca detachment. At around 1:20 in the afternoon of the same day
at Talaca, Agbannawag, Tabuk City, Kalinga, accused-appellant Sapla, did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession,
control and custody four (4) bricks of marijuana leaves, a dangerous drug,
with total net weight of 3,9563.11 grams and transport through a passenger
jeepney with plate no. AYA 270 the said marijuana without license, permit or
authority from any appropriate government entity or agency. He was then
arrested by the police officers at the Talaca checkpoint.

On January 9, 2017, the RTC Judge convicted accused -appellant Sapla for
violating Section 5 of RA 9165. The Court found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged and suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay a fine of 5M pesos.
Feeling aggrieved, accused-appellant Sapla filed an appeal before the Court
of Appeals. The CA denied accused-appellant Sapla’s appeal and affirmed the
RTC’s decision with modifications that he will pay one million pesos fine
instead of five million. The judge ruled that although the search and seizure
conducted on accused-appellant Sapla was without a search warrant, the
same was lawful as it was a valid warrantless search of a moving vehicle.
The CA held that the essential requisite of probable cause was present,
justifying the warrantless search and seizure.

ISSUE:

Whether there was a valid search and seizure conducted by the police
officers on the sole basis of an unverified tip relayed by an anonymous
informant.

RULING:

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed and set aside the
decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting accused-appellant Sapla of the
crime charged against him.

The Court finds error in the RTC and CA’s holding that the search and
seizure conducted by the authorities in the instant case is a valid warrantless
search of a moving vehicle. In this particular type of search, the vehicle is
the target and not a specific person. According to jurisprudence, 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. Such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long
as the officers conducting the search have probable cause to believe the
search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the
crime, in the vehicle to be searched. The situation presented in the instant
case cannot be considered as a search of a moving vehicle.
The Court stressed the right of the people against unreasonable searches
and seizures found in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which
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.

As readily admitted by the CA, the singular circumstance that engendered probable
cause on the part of the police officers was the information they received through
the Regional Public Safety Battalion Hotline from an anonymous person.

The Court has already held with unequivocal clarity that in situations involving
warrantless searches 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 or the presence of more than one seemingly
innocent activity from which, taken together, warrants a reasonable inference of
criminal liability. In short, a tip, in the absence of other circumstances that would
confirm their suspicion coming to the knowledge of the searching officer, was not
yet actionable purposes of affecting an arrest or conducting a search.

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.

Hence, evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of unreasonable

searches and seizures is deemed tainted and should be excluded for being
the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and shall be inadmissible in evidence
for any purpose in any proceeding.