SEARCH FOR MOVING VEHICLES
Facts: Accused was aboard a bus with a
People vs. Lacerna G.R. No. 109250
Facts: Two accused were aboard a taxicab
with two bags on their possession. The cab
was flagged to stop in a checkpoint. The
officers then asked for the consent of the
accused to search the bag. Accused
confident that he did not do any wrong,
consented to the search. Prohibited drugs
were found inside the bag specifically
marijuana leaves.
Ruling: SC ruled that we have five generally
accepted exceptions to the rule against
warrantless arrest have also been judicially
formulated as follows: (1) search incidental
to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving
vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4)
customs searches, and (5) waiver by the
accused themselves of their right against
unreasonable search and seizure. Search
and seizure relevant to moving vehicles are
allowed in recognition of the
impracticability of securing a warrant
under said circumstances. In such cases,
however, the search and seizure may be
made only upon probable cause, i.e., upon
a belief, reasonably arising out of
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.
Military or police checkpoints have also
been declared to be not illegal per se as
long as the vehicle is neither searched nor
its occupants subjected to body search,
and the inspection of the vehicle is merely
visual.
People vs. Barros G.R. No. 90640
carton box in his possession. Two policemen
were also aboard in the same bus and they
got suspicious of what was inside the box so
they asked the officers at the checkpoint at
Sabangan to inspect the box carried by
accused. After the search was conducted
they discovered kilos of dried marijuana in
the said carton box. Accused argues that
there was a violation on his constitutional
right against unreasonable searches and
seizures and prays that the items seized
should be inadmissible in evidence.
Ruling: The general rule is that a search
and seizure must be carried out through or
with a judicial warrant; otherwise such
search and seizure becomes "unreasonable"
within the meaning of the above quoted
constitutional provision. The evidence
secured thereby — i.e., the "fruits" of the
search and seizure — will be inadmissible in
evidence "for any purpose in any
proceeding." The requirement that a
judicial warrant must be obtained prior to
the carrying out of a search and seizure is,
however, not absolute. There are certain
exceptions recognized in our law, one of
which relates to the search of moving
vehicles. Peace officers may lawfully
conduct searches of moving vehicles —
automobiles, trucks, etc. — 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. In
carrying out warrantless searches of moving
vehicles, however, peace officers are limited
to routine checks, that is, the vehicles are
neither really searched nor their occupants
subjected to physical or body searches, the
examination of the vehicles being limited to
visual inspection.