People vs. Saycon

The State (P) vs. Suspected Shabu Courier (D)
GR 110995, September 5, 1994 (263 SCRA 325)	[T]

Summary: The Coastguard and NARMCOM were alerted to the arrival of a suspected shabu courier in a ship docking that morning. The suspected courier was invited for questioning and asked to reveal the contents of his bag. Prohibited drugs were found and he was arrested.

Rule of Law: Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving vehicles without need of a warrant.

Facts: Alvaro Saycon (D) was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act when he was found with "shabu".

At about 6:00am, a Coastguard personnel received information from a NARCOM agent that a suspected "shabu" courier by the name of Alvaro Saycon (D) was on board the MV Doña Virginia, which was arriving at that moment in Dumaguete City. Upon receipt of the information, the Coastguard chief officer ordered a combined team of NARCOM agents and Philippine Coastguard personnel to intercept the suspect.

The vessel docked at 6:00am that same morning at Dumaguete City. Saycon (D) alighted from the boat carrying a black bag and went through the checkpoint manned by the Philippine Coastguard where he was identified by a police officer of the NARCOM. Saycon (D) was then invited to the Coastguard Headquarters at the Pier area and he willingly went with them. At the headquarters, Saycon (D) was asked to open his bag and he willingly obliged. In it were personal belongings and a maong wallet. Inside that maong wallet, there was a cigarette pack containing the suspected "shabu". When asked whether the cigarette pack containing the suspected "shabu" was his, Saycon (D) merely bowed his head. Then, Saycon (D), his bag and the suspected "shabu" were brought to the NARCOM office for booking. When Alvaro Saycon was arrested, the NARCOM agents did not have a warrant of arrest.

Issues: Is the warrantless search valid? Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: Yes. The requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a search and seizure is not absolute. "There are certain exceptions recognized in our law," the Court noted in People vs. Barros. The exception which appears most pertinent in respect of the case at bar is that relating to the search of moving vehicles. In People vs. Barros, the Court said:

Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving vehicles without need of a warrant, it not being practicable to secure a judicial warrant before searching a vehicle, since such vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. (People vs. Bagista, supra; People vs. Lo Ho Wing, supra) In Valmonte vs. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989), the Court stated:

"Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case."

When, however, a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a law-offender or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense.

The Court considers that a valid warrantless search had been conducted. It follows that the warrantless arrest of Saycon (D) which ensued forthwith, was also valid and lawful.