Romines V.

People of the Philippines

August 25, 2010
GR No. 182010
Carpio-Morales, J.

Doctrine:

“What is, therefore, essential [in a stop and frisk] is that a genuine reason must exist,
in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
that the person who manifests unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband
concealed about him. Such a "stop-and-frisk" practice serves a dual purpose: (1) the general
interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition
that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate
manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior
even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-
preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person
with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally
be used against the police officer”

Facts:

On the basis of an informant's tip, PO1 Cruzin, together with PO2 Angel Aguas
(PO2 Aguas), proceeded at around 4:00 p.m. on December 10, 2002 to Bayanihan St.,
Malibay, Pasay City to conduct surveillance on the activities of an alleged notorious
snatcher operating in the area known only as "Ryan. Upon arrival in the target area,
P01 Cruzin would spot petitioner, who was 3 meters away, stuffing a plastic sachet
containing a white substance in her yellow cigarette case. While P01 Cruzin was unable to
clearly identify the contents of the sachet, he became suspicious of petitioner because
petitioner started to act strangely when he approached her.
P01 Cruzin approached petitioner and inquired about the plastic sachet which
she stored in her cigarette case, instead of replying, the latter attempted to flee to her
house. Petitioner Romines would be arrested by Cruzin and would be brought to the Pasay
Police station. The confiscated plastic sachet would be submitted for a laboratory
examination.
On the other hand, accused Romines contends that the evidence was planted
and that she was merely resting at her house when the police officers suddenly barged in
and arrested her. The trial court gave no credence to her contention and found her guilty
of Illegal Possession of Shabu. Petitioner assailed the legality of her arrest alongside the
validity of the stop and frisk conducted upon her before the Court of Appeals. However, the
Court of Appeals ruled that a valid stop-and-frisk was conducted upon her and that there
was existence of probable cause. Hence, this present petition.

Issue:

1) Whether or not a valid stop and frisk was conducted.

Ruling:

1) YES. A valid stop and frisk was conducted. The Supreme Court defined a stop and
frisk and how it is to be carried out in the case of ‘People VS Chua’:

“[Stop and frisk is] the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate
him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband. The police officer should properly
introduce himself and make initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifests
unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latter's outer clothing for possibly
concealed weapons. The apprehending police officer must have a genuine reason, in
accordance with the police officer's experience and the surrounding conditions, to warrant
the belief that the person to be held has weapons (or contraband) concealed about
him. It should therefore be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest
for this principle to apply.”

In the case at bar, the seizure of the plastic sachet was undertaken after P01
Cruzin introduced himself; after he interrogated the petitioner regarding the contents of
the sachet and; after Romines attempted to flee from P01 Cruzin. The Supreme Court stated
that such circumstances warranted a search on the person of the accused. It was stated
that when Romines stored the plastic sachet in her cigarette case, such act was done
in plain view. By virtue of the fact that PO1 Cruzin was a trained law enforcement officer,
“it was instinctive on his part to be drawn to curiosity and to approach her.” Furthermore,
the act of Romines of trying to flee was a valid circumstance to spark the curiosity of
P01 Cruzin. Hence, P01 Cruzin had a genuine reason in frisking Romines.

Petitioner Romines asserts that the act of placing something in her cigarette
case is a not a suspicious circumstance which would warrant a stop and frisk. The Supreme
Court ruled that such defense is conflicting with her earlier assertion that she was
merely resting at home at the time of the arrest. The Supreme Court stated that in
defenses of frame up, especially in drug-related cases, the accused must satisfactorily
adduce evidence to overturn the presumption of regularity of official acts of government
officials. Petitioner Romines failed to overturn this presumption. Hence, the petition is
denied.