CRIM PROC – Prof. Gaspar Digest by K.

Quinco
Warrantless Searches – Incident to Lawful Arrest
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
People v. Comprado
G.R. No. 213225 | 2018 | Martires, J.

Plaintiff: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Defendant: ENANTE COMPRADO y BRONOLA

Doctrine: (see discussion on issue #1)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CASE SUMMARY

Facts: Defendant was a passenger in a bus carrying a bag when he was searched by the officers. The
officers found some suspected marijuana substance and it was later on confirmed to be marijuana drug.
Was the seizure legal?

Held: No.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

FACTS
● Accused was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act
o He had in his possession 3,200 grams of dried fruiting tops of marijuana
o He pleaded not guilty
● Prosecution:
o They received a tip that an alleged courier of marijuana had boarded a bus
o Police officers then were stationed at Police Station 6 to put up a checkpoint in front of the
Station
o They eventually stopped the bus described in the information and saw a man matching the
description given to them
▪ The man was seated at the back of the bus with a backpack placed on his lap

▪ P/Insp. asked the man to open the bag and they saw a transparent cellophane
containing dried marijuana leaves
▪ They took pictures of the bag in the presence of the man and took him and the bag to
the PNP crime lab for examination – which came out positive as marijuana
● Defense:
o He was only requested to carry a bag to Cagayan de Oro
o When they reached Malaybalay, their bus was stopped by 3 police officers and inspected
their baggage – that’s when they saw the marijuana leaves
o They were taken pictures of and were brought to the police station in Cagayan de Oro –
subjected to custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
ISSUES & HELD

1. W/N accused-appellant’s arrest was valid [NO]

 Bill of Rights requires that a search and seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant
Otherwise, any evidence obtained from such warrantless search is inadmissible

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
2. Search of evidence in plain view
3. Search of a moving vehicle
4. Consented warrantless search
5. Customs search
1
CRIM PROC – Prof. Gaspar Digest by K. Quinco
Warrantless Searches – Incident to Lawful Arrest
6. Stop and Frisk
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances

 A stop-and-frisk search is often confused with a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest,
but they are distinct:

-
STOP-and-FRISK

The allowable scope for this is a “limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons”
HOW?
 When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of
his experience that a criminal activity may be afoot and that the person he is dealing may be
armed and presently dangerous
 In the course of investigating, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable
inquiries and where nothing dispels his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he can
conduct the stop-and-frisk
WHY?
 A policeman is entitled to the protection of himself and others in the area to carefully conduct
limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which
might be used to assault him

What is required?
Probable cause is not required but hunch will not validate a stop and frisk.
 Genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions, to
warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him

2-fold Interest: (Terry case)

1. the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition
that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner,
approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable
cause
2. the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take
steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon
that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.

ICAB

The Court finds that the totality of the circumstances in this case is NOT sufficient to incite a genuine
reason that would justify a stop-and-frisk search on accused-appellant
 no overt act could be properly attributed to accused-appellant as to rouse suspicion in the minds of
the arresting officers that he had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime

 there should have been a “presence of more than one seemingly innocent activity from which,
taken together, warranted a reasonable inference of criminal activity”
o Here, accused-appellant was just a passenger carrying a bag  nothing suspicious
much less criminal in said act  such circumstance by itself, could not have led the
arresting officers to believe that accused-appellant was in possession of marijuana

INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST

 there must be a lawful arrest first before the search of a person and his belongings
IT CANNOT BE REVERSED

Lawful Arrest without warrant

a) In flagrante delicto arrest
2
CRIM PROC – Prof. Gaspar Digest by K. Quinco
Warrantless Searches – Incident to Lawful Arrest
1. The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime
2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer
b) Hot pursuit
1. An offense has just been committed
2. The arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it
ICAB

Here, without the tip from the informant:

 No overt act has been have executed any overt act in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officers which would indicate that the person is carrying a marijuana bag

 No personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused has just committed an offense

*** warrantless arrests are mere exceptions to the constitutional right of a person against unreasonable
searches and seizures, thus, they must be strictly construed against the government and its agents.

MOVING VEHICLE

 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

 must be made upon the circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other
vehicle contains an item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction
 vehicle is the target and not a person

ICAB

- Cannot be classified as a search of a moving vehicle

- Their target was a person described to them and not the vehicle

2. W/N the seized items are admissible as evidence [NO]

Exclusionary Rule - evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding

 It is the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree

3. W/N the accused-appellant is guilty of the crime charged [NO]

DECISION
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 19 May 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 01156 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Renante Comprado y Bronola is
ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED from detention unless he is detained for any other lawful cause. The
Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Decision and to report to this
Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.

SO ORDERED.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
NOTES