Philippines vs Jerry Sapla y Guerrero

G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020

CAGUIOA,J.;

FACTS:

Jerry Sapla y Guerrero (Sapal) was arrested on Jan. 10, 2014. Seized from him
are 4 bricks of marijuana leaves. The arrest was made based on an anonymous call
and text message about the transport of marijuana from Kalinga and the description of
the person carrying it and the vehicle he was in. After seeing the vehicle, the police
flagged it down. Upon seeing Sapla who fits the description based on the text message,
authorities asked about the sack in front of him. Sapla admitted it was his. He opened it
upon instructions from the police leading to the discovery of the marijuana bricks. Sapla
was arrested and eventually convicted by the Tabuk City Regional Trial Court. The
lower court’s decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, thus it went to the Supreme
Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not information gain from an informant is sufficient to established

probable cause?

DESCISION:

No. “A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be, ”the high court said.
By solely relying on tips from informants, the high court said such practice would open”
the floodgates to unfounded searches, seizures, and arrests that may be initiated by sly
informants.” In the case of Sapla, the “invalid and unlawful search of a moving vehicle”
cannot be cured by the supposed “consent” given by Sapla when he opened his sack
that led to the discovery of the marijuana bricks.
A waiver of rights against unreasonable searches and seizures must have the
following requisites: 1. it must appear that the rights exist; 2. the person involved had
knowledge, actual or constructive of the existence of such right, and’ said person had
an actual intention to relinquish the right. “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 accused-appellant
Sapla was subjected to a coercive environment, considering that he was confronted by
several armed police officers in a checkpoint. The high court said that while they
recognize the need to adopt an aggressive stand against illegal drugs, the indelible right
against constitutional searches and seizures must not be sacrificed. “By disregarding
basic constitutional rights as a means to curtail the proliferation of illegal drugs, instead
of protecting the general welfare, oppositely, the general welfare is viciously assaulted,”