People vs. Victor Cogaed, G.R. No.

200334, July 30, 2014, 731 SCRA 427

FACTS: An informant thru a text message told the police that a certain Marvin would be transporting
marijuana from Barangay Lun-Oy.

The police organized checkpoints in order “to intercept the suspect.” A passenger jeepney from
Barangay Lun-Oy arrived at the checkpoint. The jeepney driver disembarked and signaled to SPO1
Taracatas indicating a male passenger was carrying marijuana. SPO1 Taracatas approached the male
passenger who was identified as Victor who was carrying a blue bag. SPO1 Taracatas asked Victor about
the contents of his bag and he said he did not know since he was transporting the bag as a favor to his
barrio mate named Marvin.

After this exchange, Victor opened the blue bag revealing three bricks of marijuana. SPO1 arrested
Victor and was brought to the police station.

The RTC and the CA found Victor guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of RA 9165 when Victor
waived his right against warrantless searches “without prompting from SPO1 Taracatac, he voluntarily
opened his bag.

ISSUE: Whether the search and seizure was illegal.

HELD:

YES. “Stop and frisk” searches should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in
accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. The balance lies in the concept of
“suspiciousness” present in the situation where the police officer finds himself in. Experienced police
officers have personal experience dealing with criminal and criminal behavior. Thus, a basic criterion
would be that the police officer, with his personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the
suspicion of an illicit act.

In the case at bar, Victor was simply a passenger carrying a bag and traveling aboard a jeepney. There
was nothing suspicious, moreover, criminal, about riding jeepney or carrying a bag. Hence, the search
and seizure against the accused Victor is illegal because of the absence of the requisite of
“suspiciousness.”

The assessment of suspicion was not made by the police officer but by the jeepney driver who signaled
to the police that Victor was “suspicious.”

The known jurisprudential instances of reasonable warrantless searches and seizures are:

1. warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.

2. seizure of evidence in “plain view”

3. search of moving vehicle

4. consented warrantless search

5. customs search

6. stop and frisk, and

7. exigent and emergency circumstances.

Searches incidental to a lawful arrest require that a crime be committed in flagrante delicto, and the
search conducted within the vicinity and within reach by the person arrested is done to ensure that
there are no weapons, as well as to preserve the evidence.

“Stop and frisk” are conducted to prevent the occurrence of a crime. It’s object is either to determine
the identity of a suspicious individual or to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officer
to obtain more information. There can be no valid waiver of Victor’s constitutional rights even if we
assume that he did not object when the police asked him to open his bag. His silence should not be
lightly taken as consent to such search as it is a mere passive conformity given under intimidating or
coercive circumstances created by the presence of the police officer and thus no consent at all within
the purview of the constitutional guarantee.