Warrantless arrests

EDITORIAL

With the backlash against police for allegedly going overboard in arrest or killing of drug suspects, the Supreme Court reminded law enforcers on rules on warrantless arrests and searches on persons or vehicles of suspected criminal offenders. This, as the SC acquitted a drug convict because of “unreasonable and unlawful” search and arrest done by the police.

In a decision written by Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, the SC said there must be a lawful arrest first before a search can be done and “the process cannot be reversed.”

It pointed out that “routine inspections do not give police officers carte blanche (complete freedom to act as one wishes or thinks best) discretion to conduct warrantless searches in the absence of probable cause.”

With the decision, the SC acquitted Gerrjan Manago of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 because of violations on the rules on warrantless arrests and searches.

Manago was convicted by the Cebu City regional trial court (RTC) in 2009 and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in 2013.

Case records released by the SC’s public information office (PIO) showed that in the evening of March 15, 2007, PO3 Antonio Din of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Mobile Patrol Group personally witnessed a robbery incident while waiting to have a haircut inside a Cebu City parlor.

         After his brief shootout with the armed robbers, the suspects fled using a motorcycle and a red Toyota Corolla vehicle.

After an investigation and verification by police authorities, they found that the armed robbers were staying in Barangay Del Rio Pit-os and traced the getaway vehicles to Manago.

On March 16, 2007, the police set up a checkpoint in Sitio Panagdait where the red Toyota Corolla being driven by Manago passed by and was intercepted by the police officers. The police then ordered Manago to disembark the car, and from there, proceeded to search the vehicle and the body of Manago, which yielded the plastic sachet containing shabu. Thereupon, the policemen effected Manago’s arrest.

        In the case of Manago, the SC said that the police officers had already conducted a thorough investigation and verification proceedings, which yielded, among others, the identities of the robbery suspects, the place where they reside, and the ownership of the getaway vehicles used in the robbery.  These, the court said were already enough for the police officers to secure the necessary warrants to accost the robbery suspects.

“Consequently, there was no longer any exigent circumstance that would have justified the necessity of setting up a checkpoint for the purpose of searching the subject vehicle.  Also, the checkpoint was arranged for the targeted arrest of Manago, who was already identified as the culprit of the robbery incident. In this regard, it cannot, therefore, be said that the checkpoint was meant to conduct a routinary and indiscriminate search of moving vehicles. Rather, it was used as a subterfuge to put into force the capture of the fleeing suspect,” the SC said.

 “In fine, Manago’s warrantless arrest, and the search incidental thereto, including that of his moving vehicle were all unreasonable and unlawful. In consequence, the shabu seized from him is rendered inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule under Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Since the confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, Manago must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability,” the SC ruled.

It stressed that “to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. In other words, evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.”

It pointed out that one of the recognized exceptions to the needs of a warrant before a search may be effected is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made and “the process cannot be reversed,” it added.