SAPLA RULING: RESTATEMENT OF THE RULE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
The Supreme Court recently published its ruling in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Jerry Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, which was decided upon last 16 June 2020. Penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguoia, the Court En Banc (with three dissenting magistrates) settled once and for all the question, “Can the police conduct a warrantless intrusive search of a vehicle on the sole basis of an unverified tip relayed by an anonymous informant?”
The case stemmed from the arrest of the accusedJerry Sapla on 10 January 2014 who was aboard a passenger jeepney in Tabuk, City, Kalinga Province bound for Roxas, Isabela. The police supposedly received an anonymous text message around 1:00 p.m. that a “subject male person would transport marijuana wearing a collared white shirt with green stripes, red ball cap, and was carrying a blue sack on board a passenger jeepney, with plate number AYA 270 bound for Roxas, Isabela.” The police immediately set-up a joint checkpoint and around 1:20 p.m., the passenger jeepney arrived. The police officers saw the accused seating in the rear side of the vehicle with a blue sack in front of him. The police officers asked if he owns the blue sack and upon getting an affirmative answer, asked him to open the sack. Yielding four (4) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper and old calendar calendar, the police officers effected an arrest on the accused. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Tabuk convicted the accused and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, hence, the automatic appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court restated the basic rule against unreasonable search and seizure as enshrined in Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. As a general rule, a search and seizure operation conducted by authorities is reasonable only when a court issues a search warrant after it has determined the existence of probable cause through the personal examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses presented before the court, with the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized particularly described. There are instances, however, that jurisprudence allows warrantless searches and seizures, namely: 1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; 2) seizure of evidence in plain view; 3) search of a moving vehicle; 4) consented warrantless search; 5) customs search; 6) stop and frisk; and 7) exigent and emergency circumstances.
In convicting the accused, both the trial court and Court of Appeals considered the case falling under the exception of a search of a moving vehicle. Search of a moving vehicle is an accepted exception because of the recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant as a vehicle can quickly move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant may be sought. The rule, however, is that peace officers in such cases are limited to “routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection.” The Court further held that extensive search of a vehicle is permissible, but only when the “officers made it 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.”
Citing the recent ruling in People vs. Comprado, G.R. No. 213225 (04 April 2018), the Supreme Court, in acquitting accused Sapla, held that it cannot be considered a cursory search of a moving vehicle. The target of the search conducted was not the passenger jeepney boarded by accused Sapla nor the cargo or contents of the said vehicle but the person who matched the description given by the anonymous person who gave the tip to the police officers, i.e. “the person wearing a collared white shirt with green stripes, red ball cap, and carrying a blue sack.”
The Court further held that neither can it be considered as allowable extensive search on a moving vehicle since there was no probable cause aside from the anonymous text information received by the police officers. The Court held that law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of confidential or tipped information. A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. “It does not constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arose suspicion.” The Court emphasized that, “the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act and not merely on the information passed on to him or her.” The Court made a distinction between cases wherein warrantless search was justified and the circumstances in Sapla. The Court held in these cases, police officers did further surveillance and the accused acted suspiciously which constituted probable cause. In Sapla, the police officers merely relied and acted upon the anonymous text and the accused did not act suspiciously.
In summary, the Court now laid down the rule, as follows: “exclusive reliance on an unverified, anonymous tip cannot engender probable cause that permits a warrantless search of a moving vehicle that goes beyond a visual search – which include both long-standing and the most recent jurisprudence – should be the prevailing and controlling line of jurisprudence.”