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.

II.    THE ISSUE

Was the marijuana seized without warrant during the checkpoint admissible in evidence against the accused?

III.   THE RULING

[The 1^st Division voted 3-1 to AFFIRM the conviction of the accused. Justices Griño-Aquino and Quiason concurred with Justice Bellosillo’s ponencia. Justice Cruz, by his lonesome, dissented from the majority.]

 The Court held that Bocalan is deemed to have waived his objection to the admission of the seized marijuana because he neither raised this issue before the trial court nor objected to the admissibility of the marijuana when it was offered in evidence.

And even assuming that there was no such waiver, the Court held that still Bocalan’s contention deserves scant consideration because there are instances where search and seizure can be made without necessarily being preceded by an arrest. An illustration would be the “stop-and-search” without a warrant at military or police checkpoints, the constitutionality of which has already been upheld by this Court [in Valmonte vs. De Villa]. Vehicles are generally allowed to pass through these checkpoints after a routine inspection and answering a few questions. If vehicles are stopped and extensively searched it is because of some probable cause which justifies a reasonable belief of those manning the checkpoints that either the motorist is a law-offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been instruments in the commission of an offense.

According to the Court, lest it be misunderstood, the foregoing doctrine is not intended to do away with the general rule that no person shall be subjected to search of his person, personal effects and belongings, or his residence except of virtue of a search warrant or on the occasion of a lawful arrest. This case, however, is an incident to or an offshoot of a lawful “stop-and-search” at a military or police checkpoint.

The checkpoint in the instant case was established in line with “Operational Bakal,” the main object of which was to search for unlicensed firearms and other prohibited items in the possession of unauthorized persons passing through it. When the jeep carrying the contraband passed through the checkpoint, it was flagged down and the occupants were asked routine questions. In the course thereof, Pfc. Galang noticed a black leather bag the sides of which were bulging. He asked what the contents of the bag were. None of the accused answered. At that moment, the demeanor of the accused changed; they became suspiciously quiet and nervous as if they were concealing something from Pfc. Galang. The accused clearly appeared to be in abject fear of being discovered. Such peculiar apprehensiveness if not restrained reaction of the accused, which did not appear normal, provided the probable cause justifying a more extensive search that led to the opening of the bag and the discovery of the prohibited stuff.

[NOTE: Incidentally, one of the co-counsels for accused-appellant Bocalan in his appeal to the Supreme Court was then-Atty. and now Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr.]

CRUZ, J., dissenting:

Justice Cruz maintained the proposition in his dissent in Valmonte vs. De Villa that checkpoints and the searches and seizures incident thereto are unconstitutional. In People vs. Exala, he expounded on this thesis:

I am opposed to checkpoints as regular police measures aimed at reducing criminality in general. I do not agree that in the interest of peace and order, any or every vehicle may be stopped at any time by the authorities and searched without warrant on the chance that it may be carrying prohibited articles. That possibility is not the probable cause envisioned in the Bill of Rights.

In the case of the ordinary checkpoint, there is not even any suspicion to justify the search. The search is made as a matter of course, either of all vehicles or at random. There is no showing that a crime is about to be committed, is actually being committed, or has just been committed and the searching officer has personal knowledge that the person being searched or arrested is the culprit.

I will concede that checkpoints may be established at borders of states or at ‘constructive borders’ near the boundary for the purpose of preventing violations of immigration and customs laws. But in the interior of the territory, the requirements of a valid search and seizure must be strictly observed. The only permissible exemption is where a crime like a bank robbery has just been committed or a jailbreak has just occurred, and the authorities have to seal off all possible avenues of escape in the area. In all other cases, I submit that the checkpoint should not be allowed.

xxx. [W]e cannot retroactively validate an illegal search on the justification that, after all, the articles seized are illegal. That is putting the cart before the horse. I would rather see some criminals go unpunished now and then than agree to the Bill of Rights being systematically ignored in the oppressive checkpoint. Respect for the Constitution is more important than securing a conviction based on a violation of the rights of the accused. (Emphasis supplied.)