People v. Rodelio C. Exala, et al., G.R. No. 76005, April 23, 1993

D E C I S I O N

(1^st Division)

BELLOSILLO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

A private jeep driven by accused-appellant Bocalan was stopped at a police checkpoint in Cavite City for routine inspection. With Bocalan were his co-accused Fernandez and Exala. Pfc. Galang, a member of the inspection team, went near the jeep and asked the occupants if there were firearms inside. They answered in the negative. Pfc. Galang proceeded to inspect the vehicle by beaming a flashlight inside. He then noticed a black leather bag measuring about 1 foot wide and 2 feet long with its sides bulging. When he asked what it contained, there was deadening silence from the 3 accused. Nobody answered. Instead, they suddenly became fidgety. Suspicious, Pfc. Galang ordered the bag opened, which was found out to contain marijuana. The 3 accused were thereafter prosecuted and convicted of illegal transportation of marijuana. Accused Bocalan appealed and questioned the legality of the admission of the marijuana as evidence against him since it was seized without a valid search warrant.

Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989 (173 SCRA 211) : The Dissenting Opinions

DISSENTING OPINIONS

[At issue in this case is the validity of military and police checkpoints, and the searches and seizures attendant thereto, vis-a-vis the constitutional right of the people against unreasonable search and seizure.

As indicated in the immediately preceding post, the Supreme Court voted 13-2 to sustain the validity of these checkpoints. It held in part that “[b]etween the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an individual’s right against a warrantless search which is however reasonably conducted, the former should prevail.” Justice Padilla reasoned in his ponencia that “at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community.”

The Checkpoints Case : Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989 (173 SCRA 211)

D E C I S I O N

PADILLA, J.:

I.          THE FACTS

On 20 January 1987, the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) was activated pursuant to Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the Philippine General Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of conducting security operations within its area of responsibility and peripheral areas, for the purpose of establishing an effective territorial defense, maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social, economic and political development of the National Capital Region. As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro Manila. 

Petitioners Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, who is a resident of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and the Union of Lawyers and Advocates For People’s Rights (ULAP) sought the declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela, Metro Manila and elsewhere as unconstitutional. In the alternative, they prayed that respondents Renato De Villa and the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) be directed to formulate guidelines in the implementation of checkpoints for the protection of the people. Petitioners contended that the checkpoints gave the respondents blanket authority to make searches and seizures without search warrant or court order in violation of the Constitution.