GARCIA, DOREEN YSABELLE E.

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

CABALLES V CA
o

PETITIONER:
Rudy Caballes y Taio
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals, and
The People of the Philippines
CITATION:
373 SCRA 221 (G.R. No. 136292)
PROMUL. DATE: January 15, 2002
PONENTE:
Puno, J.
FACTS
June 28, 1989, 9:15PM Sgt. Victorina Noceja
and Pat. Alex Castro, on routine patrol in Brgy.
Sampalucan, Pagsanjan, Laguna
o They spotted a passenger unusually
covered in kakwati leaves.
o Suspected that said jeep was loaded with
smuggled goods, they flagged it down.
The driver was Caballes.
o With Caballes consent, the police
officers checked the cargo and found:
bundles
of
3.08
mm
aluminum/galvanized conductor
wires exclusively owned by
National
Power
Corporation
(NPC), weighing 700kg and
amounting to PhP 55,244.45.
o Caballes said they from Cavinti.
o He was brought to Pagsanjan Police
Station. Danilo Cabale took pictures of
the appellant and the jeep loaded with
the wires which were turned over to the
Police Station Commander of Pagsanjan,
Laguna.
o Caballes was incarcerated for 7 days in
the Municipal Jail.
APPELLANTS DEFENSE: denial and alibi.
o Testified that he was a NARCOM civilian
agent since January 1988 although his ID
has already expired
o The cables were owned by the jeep
owner, Resty Fernandez.
RTC: Guilty of theft of property PhP 55, 244.45.
CA: Affirmed the decision of CA.
ISSUES:
o WON the warrantless search and seizure
made by the police was valid
o WON the evidence obtained thereof was
admissible
RELATED LAW:
o Section 2, Art III, Consti:
The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against
unreasonable
searches
and
seizures of whatever nature and
for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant
or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be

determined personally by the

judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be
searched and the persons or
things to be seized.
EXCEPTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
PROSCRIPTIONS
AGAINST
WARRANTLESS
SEARCH
AND
SEIZURES:
Warrantless search incidental to a
lawful arrest recognized under
Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court and by prevailing
jurisprudence
seizure of evidence in plain view
search of moving vehicles
consented warrantless search
customs search
stop and frisk situations (Terry
search)
exigent
and
emergency
circumstances.

HELD:
o No. The evidence on record are
insufficient
to
sustain
petitioners
conviction. His guilt can only be
established
without
violating
the
constitutional right of the accused against
unreasonable search and seizure.
WHEREFORE, the impugned decision is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and
accused
Rudy Caballes is
hereby
ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

RATIONALE:
o I. SEARCH OF A MOVING VEHICLE
When 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 they
will find the instrumentality or
evidence pertaining to a crime in
the vehicle to be searched.
We hold that the fact that the
vehicle looked suspicious simply
because it is not common for
such to be covered with kakawati
leaves does not constitute
probable cause as would justify
the conduct of a search without a
warrant.
o II. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
Jurisprudence is to the effect that
an object is in plain view if the
object itself is plainly exposed to
sight. Where the object seized
was inside a closed package, the
object itself is not in plain view

and therefore cannot be seized

without a warrant. However, if the
package proclaims its contents,
whether
by
its
distinctive
configuration, its transparency, or
if its contents are obvious to an
observer, then the contents are in
plain view and may be seized. In
other words, if the package is
such
that
an
experienced
observer could infer from its
appearance that it contains the
prohibited article, then the article
is deemed in plain view. It must
be immediately apparent to the
police that the items that they
observe may be evidence of a
crime, contraband or otherwise
subject to seizure.
It is clear from the records of this
case that the cable wires were not
exposed to sight because they
were placed in sacks and covered
with leaves. The articles were
neither
transparent
nor
immediately apparent to the
police authorities. In such a case,
it has been held that the object is
not in plain view which could have
justified mere seizure of the
articles without further search.
III. CONSENTED SEARCH
Petitioner contends that the
statement of Sgt. Victorino Noceja
that he checked the vehicle with
the consent of the accused is too
vague to prove that petitioner
consented to the search. He
claims that there is no specific

statement as to how the consent

was asked and how it was given,
nor the specific words spoken by
petitioner indicating his alleged
consent. At most, there was only
an implied acquiescence, a mere
passive conformity, which is no
consent at all within the purview
of the constitutional guarantee.
In the case at bar, the evidence is
lacking
that
the
petitioner
intentionally surrendered his right
against
unreasonable
searches. The manner by which
the two police officers allegedly
obtained the consent of petitioner
for them to conduct the search
leaves much to be desired. When
petitioner's vehicle was flagged
down,
Sgt. Noceja approached
petitioner and told him I will
look at the contents of his
vehicle and he answered in the
positive.
For all intents and purposes, they
were informing,
nay,
imposing upon herein petitioner
that they will search his vehicle.
The consent given under
intimidating
or
coercive
circumstances is no consent
within the purview of the
constitutional guaranty. In the
case of herein petitioner, the
statements of the police officers
were not
asking
for
his
consent; they were declaring to
him that they will look inside his
vehicle.