Case Crim
Case Crim
Case Crim
*
No. L-41686. November 17, 1980.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION
87
deprive the State of its right to prosecute. But under our penal
laws, criminal responsibility, if any, must be proven not by
preponderance of evidence but by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Same; Persons exercising authority under the customs law
may effect search and seizure without a search warrant.—Aware
of this delineation, the Court in that case expressed the
considered view that “except in the case of the search of a
dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the
customs law may effect search and seizure without a search
warrant in the enforcement of customs laws.”
Same; Same.—To paraphrase the significant views of Mr.
Chief Justice Taft, the legislative history of the Act clearly
established the intent of Congress to make a distinction between
the necessity for a search warrant in the search of private
dwellings and that of automobiles and other road vehicles in the
enforcement of the Act. This distinction is consistent with the 4th
Amendment since the latter does not denounce all searches or
seizures, but only such as are unreasonable. Searches and
seizures, without warrant are valid if made upon probable cause,
that is, upon a belief, reasonably arising
88
GUERRERO, J.:
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
89
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
92
93
_______________
96
97
or,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
_______________
98
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
99
_______________
9 Id., at 549.
10 Id., at 551.
11 Id., at 553.
12 Records, p. 50.
100
automobile. Not even the trial court has made any findings
that ASAC has established with exactitude the place to be
searched and the person or thing to be seized. Lacking this
essential determination, the agents could not have possibly
secured a valid warrant even if they had foreseen its
compelling necessity. For one thing, the information could
have been just another false alarm. Providentially,
however, things turned out differently when in the morning
of February 9, 1974, the undisclosed Informer himself went
along with the agents to the rendezvous point where at the
appointed time he positively identified an approaching car
as the one described by him a week earlier to be the
suspected carrier of untaxed merchandise. Clearly
therefore, the agents acted not on the basis of a mere
hearsay but on a confirmed information worthy of belief
and probable cause enough for them to adopt measures to
freeze the fleeting event.
We need not argue that the subjective phase of the
police action taken by the ASAC Agents to effect the
apprehension of the suspected violators can be anything
less than the ensuing interception and stoppage of
respondents’ vehicle after a short chase. Neither can We
sustain the argument that in doing so, the agents violated
respondents’ constitutional “liberty of travel”. To recall
again Mr. Chief Justice Taft: “(B)ut those lawfully within
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
_______________
101
_______________
14 Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 858; Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637
(1946).
15 Tañada & Carreon, Political Law of the Philippines, Vol. 2, 139
(1962).
16 Cf. Alvarez v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 64 Phil. 33 (1937).
102
_______________
103
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
_______________
104
_______________
* Mr. Justice de Castro was designated to sit with the First Division.
105
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
_______________
107
4
Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the
Philippines; and (2) dated September 30, 1975 denying the
State’s motion for reconsideration of the Order dated
August 20, 1975, should be upheld and the petition at bar
accordingly dismissed.
1. I cannot accede to the majority’s casual approach to
the case at bar which in the main raises an issue of
constitutional dimension. The majority opinion simply and
broadly applied judicial precedents, taking no heed of the
injunction that “when the guarantee against unreasonable
search and seizure is invoked, there is a need to scrutinize5
the facts rigorously to preclude any infringement thereof.”
This injunction should be given due regard with greater
reason where, as in the case at bar, the Court invokes the
applicability of a judicially established exception to a
constitutionally protective rule. Indeed, “[t]he
constitutional validity of a warrantless search [and seizure]
is pre-eminently the sort of question which can only be
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
decided
6
in the concrete factual context of the individual
case.”
_______________
108
_______________
109
_______________
10 Ibid.
11 53 L. Ed. 2d 538, 433 U.S. 1.
12 Chadwick, 53 L. Ed. 2d at 542.
110
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
_______________
111
16
to Manila from Angeles City in a blue Dodge17car” and that
the goods, in 18“sealed boxes with yellow tie,” would consist
of “watches”; (2) After the interception, “Agent Sabado
boarded the Dodge car with respondents while Agent
Manuel took [his] own car and both cars drove towards
Tropical Hut making a brief stop at the Bonanza 19
where
Agent Manuel called up Col. Abad by telephone”; and (3)
“Arriving at the Tropical Hut, the party, together with Col.
Abad who had joined them waited for the man who
according to Monina was supposed to receive the boxes. As
the man did not appear, Col. Abad ‘called off the mission’
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
_______________
16 Decision, p. 2.
17 Rollo, p. 87, corresponding to page 28 of the Memorandum for the
Respondents wherein appear quoted excerpts from the transcript of
stenographic notes taken during the hearing of Criminal Case Q3881
involved herein.
18 Rollo, pp. 186-187, corresponding to pages 27-28 of the Memorandum
for the Respondents.
Parenthetically, the majority’s opinion attaches no significance to the
circumstance that the ASAC agents knew beforehand that the highly
dutiable goods which would be transported from Angeles City of Manila
“in sealed boxes” would be “watches.”
On the matter, the opinion only states, to wit:
“The records hardly reveal anything certain and confirmatory of the report during
the said period except the general knowledge that some highly dutiable goods
would be transported from Angeles City to Manila in a blue Dodge automobile.”
(Decision, p. 12).
19 Decision, p. 3.
20 Ibid.
112
_______________
113
_______________
25 Ibid., p. 71.
26 Ibid., pp. 76-77.
114
could have delayed the actual search and seizure until the
necessary warrant had been obtained, which would not
have taken them beyond mid-afternoon of the same day.
The inconvenience which could be caused by the delay to
respondents Hope and Medina would at least be tolerable,
for such inconvenience could be quantifiable only in terms
of hours spent while waiting, rather than the transgression
of their rights through the warrantless search and seizure
which could be measured only in terms of fundamental
constitutional values violated.
The case at bar offers no situation “where it is not
practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which
the warrant must be sought.” As previously stated, after
the interception, “Agent Sabado boarded the Dodge car
with the respondents”
27
and directed Sgt. Hope the route he
should take. Agent Sabado had, in effect, taken custody or
control of Sgt. Hope’s Dodge sedan, for, being in there, on
hand at all times from the moment he boarded it through
the trip to Bonanza Restaurant, Tropical Hut Foodmart
and, finally, Camp Aguinaldo to guard against any
deviation by Sgt. Hope from the route he had been directed
to take or against any attempt to run off with the car and
its contents, his presence had neutralized, if not
eliminated, the said car’s mobility. Moreover, the RASAC
agents, by directing the Dodge sedan to Camp Aguinaldo
and retaining it within the premises of the said Camp, had
effected its complete immobilization as well as of its
contents. Definitely, under all these circumstances, there
could not have been the slightest possibility that Sgt. Hope
and Medina could have either moved the car or removed its
contents—all securely within the custody of the RASAC
agents and the premises of Camp Aguinaldo—before the
necessary search and seizure warrant could be secured.
_______________
115
_______________
116
31
3. The majority opinion also cites Boyd v. United States,
with particular reference to the dissertation therein on the
distinction between the search and seizure of “stolen or
forfeited goods or goods liable to duties and concealed to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
_______________
117
_______________
35 Ibid., p. 953.
36 Boyd, decided on February 1, 1886, predated Fremont Weeks v.
United States (58 L. Ed. 652, 232 U.S. 383), decided on February 24, 1914
wherein the Court, indictum, recognized the search-incident-to-a-lawful-
arrest exception, and Carroll, supra, decided on March 2, 1925, wherein
the Court first categorically established the search-of-automobile
exception.
37 18 L. Ed. 2d 782; 387 U.S. 294.
118
xxxxxxx
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
_______________
119
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
“We must remember that the extent of any privilege of search and
seizure without warrant which we sustain, the officers interpret
and apply themselves and will push to the limit. We must
remember, too, that freedom from unreasonable search differs
from some of the other rights of the Constitution in that there is
no way in which the innocent citizen can invoke advance
protection. For example, any effective interference with freedom of
the press, or free speech, or religion, usually requires a course of
suppressions against which the citizen can and often does go to
the court and obtain an injunction. Other rights, such as that to . .
. the aid of counsel, are within the supervisory power of the courts
themselves. Such a right as just compensation for the taking of
private property may be vindicated after the act in terms of
money.
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
120
All told, I hold that the warrant less search and seizure
conducted by the RASAC agents in the case at bar should
be invalidated and the constitutional sanction declaring the
evidence obtained
46
thereby “inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding” should be upheld.
II
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
121
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
122
______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
123
not bother to ask her.’ (Exh. ‘5-A Hope’) These assertions find
support in the direct testimony of Col. Antonio Abad, Chief,
Intelligence and Operations, RASAC, who testified thus: (t.s.n., p.
104)
“A. x x x I asked him again, how come your car was loaded with foreign
items? And he said ‘that is my lady companion’s.’ I told him, don’t you
know these are hot items?
Q. What did he say?
A. He was surprised.
Both Col. Antonio Abad and Agent Macario Sabado, one of the
apprehending agents admitted in open hearing that during their
initial interrogation of T/Sgt. Hope, he maintained and professed
that he did not know of the contents of the 11 boxes. Monina
Medina, on the other hand, stated on direct examination that
T/Sgt. Hope was not present when the subject 11 boxes were
delivered to her at the vacant lot in Angeles City by Antonio del
Rosario. (tsn p. 169) Moreover, in her sworn statement given to
the RASAC, Monina Medina stated thus: (Exh. ‘4-A’ Hope)
“Q. When you told T/Sgt. Hope that you will load something in his car,
did he ask you what you were going to load?
A. No, sir.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
124
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
125
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
126
“The collector’s final declaration that the articles are not subject
to forfeiture does not detract his findings that untaxed goods were
transported in respondent’s car and seized from their possession
by agents of the law. Whether criminal liability lurks on the
strength of the provision of the Tariff and Customs Code adduced
in the information can only be determined in a separate criminal
action. Respondents’ exoneration in the administrative cases
cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute. But under our
penal laws, criminal responsibility, if any, must be proven not by
preponderance
51
of evidence but by proof beyond reasonable
doubt.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 41/44
2/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101
_______________
127
pro-
_______________
129
——o0o——
130
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161b856dc016f22b66d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/44