1.

Read the case of People vs Sapla GR 244045, June 16, 2020 and answer the following
questions:

a. Whether or not an informant’s tip is sufficient to engender probable cause?

No, the informant’s tip is insufficient to produce probable cause.

Probable cause is that which supports the men at the checkpoints' reasonable suspicion that
either the driver is a criminal or that the vehicle's contents are or have been tools of some
crime, or that suspicion is reasonably based on information known to the seizing officer
that an automobile or other vehicle contains something that is, by law, subject to seizure
and destruction.

Law enforcement officials cannot act simply based on secret or tip-off information, the
court ruled in one example. Regardless of how trustworthy it may be, a tip is still hearsay.
In the absence of any additional facts that may raise suspicion, it is insufficient to qualify
as probable cause.

Police officers conducted a search, a seizure, and an arrest in the case of People v. Sapla
based on a single tip. Based on a single tip—a radio communication informing them that a
certain truck carrying three (3) persons was smuggling marijuana from Pikit—they went
ahead and carried out a search, a seizure, and an arrest. The arresting officers went ahead
and started a search as soon as the accused's car—which seemingly fit this description—
arrived at the checkpoint. They then asked the driver if they might look inside the car. The
driver didn't get out of the car until you insisted. He didn't open the hood until a police
officer prodded him further.

Therefore, a tip by itself, without any supporting factors, is insufficient to establish

probable causation.
b. Whether or not the police officers may justify the search as a search of a moving
vehicle?

No, police officers may not justify the search as a search of a moving vehicle.

The legal system has established requirements for a legitimate warrantless search of a
moving vehicle. In acknowledgment of the impossibility of obtaining a warrant under
the circumstances since the vehicle can be immediately transferred outside of the
location or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought, warrantless searches and
seizures of moving cars are permitted. However, in certain situations, peace officers
are only permitted to conduct routine inspections during which the vehicle is only
visually inspected. On the other hand, a thorough search of a car is permitted, but only
if it was conducted by the officers based on reasonable suspicion.

In the case of People vs Sapla, there is no showing of impracticability on the part of the
police officers to secure a warrant under the given circumstances.

Furthermore, the search conducted by the police officers was not merely visual
inspection, but extensive. The extensive search made by the officers is invalid due to
lack of probable cause. Hence, the Constitutional requirement of search warrant should
be sustained.

c. Whether or not the police officers may justify the search as consented search?

No, the police cannot claim that the search was consented.
Sapla did not waive his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Because armed
law enforcement officers were surrounding him, he was forced to open the blue bag in a
passive manner. It does not constitute consent because, as the court noted, consent to a
warrantless search and seizure must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given, and not
unattended by coercion or duress. Whereas in this particular instance, it is obvious that
Sapla never consented, hence the evidence acquired is inadmissible in accordance with the
Exclusionary Rule or Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.