Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

RODEL LUZ y ONG, Petitioner,

G. R. No. 1 !!"" Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PERE , !ERENO, an" RE#E!, JJ. Pro$ul%ate":

- versus -

&ebruar' (), (*+(

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,1 [1]

Respon"ent.

#$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$#

DECISION SERENO, J.% ,his is a Petition for Revie- on Certiorari un"er Rule ./ see0in% to set asi"e the Court of Appeals 1CA2 3ecision in CA-4.R. CR No. 5(/+6 "ate" +7 &ebruar' (*++(8(9 an" Resolution "ate" 7 :ul' (*++.

Statement of the Facts and of the Case

+8+9 ,he Petition -as ori%inall' captione" as ;Ro"el <u= ' On% v. >on. Court of Appeals, >on. Presi"in% :u"%e, Re%ional ,rial Court, Branch (+, Na%a Cit'.? >o-ever, un"er !ection ., Rule ./ of the Rules of Court, the petition $ust state the full na$e of the appealin% part' as the petitioner an" the a"verse part' as respon"ent, -ithout i$plea"in% the lo-er courts or @u"%es thereof either as petitioners or respon"ents. (8(9Penne" b' Associate :ustice Ricar"o R. Rosario an" concurre" in b' Associate :ustices >a0i$ !. Ab"ul-ahi" an" !a$uel >. 4aerlan.

,he facts, as foun" b' the Re%ional ,rial Court 1R,C2, -hich sustaine" the version of the prosecution, are as follo-s:
PO( E$$anuel <. Alte=a, -ho -as then assi%ne" at the !ub-!tation + of the Na%a Cit' Police !tation as a traffic enforcer, substantiall' testifie" that on March +*, (**5 at aroun" 5:** oAcloc0 in the $ornin%, he sa- the accuse", -ho -as co$in% fro$ the "irection of Pan%aniban 3rive an" %oin% to 3iversion Roa", Na%a Cit', "rivin% a $otorc'cle -ithout a hel$etB that this pro$pte" hi$ to fla% "o-n the accuse" for violatin% a $unicipal or"inance -hich reCuires all $otorc'cle "rivers to -ear hel$et 1sic2 -hile "rivin% sai" $otor vehicleB that he invite" the accuse" to co$e insi"e their sub-station since the place -here he fla%%e" "o-n the accuse" is al$ost in front of the sai" sub-stationB that -hile he an" !PO+ Ra'for" Brillante -ere issuin% a citation tic0et for violation of $unicipal or"inance, he notice" that the accuse" -as uneas' an" 0ept on %ettin% so$ethin% fro$ his @ac0etB that he -as alerte" an" so, he tol" the accuse" to ta0e out the contents of the poc0et of his @ac0et as the latter $a' have a -eapon insi"e itB that the accuse" obli%e" an" slo-l' put out the contents of the poc0et of his @ac0et -hich -as a nic0el-li0e tin or $etal container about t-o 1(2 to three 152 inches in si=e, inclu"in% t-o 1(2 cellphones, one 1+2 pair of scissors an" one 1+2 !-iss 0nifeB that upon seein% the sai" container, he as0e" the accuse" to open itB that after the accuse" opene" the container, he notice" a cartoon cover an" so$ethin% beneath itB an" that upon his instruction, the accuse" spille" out the contents of the container on the table -hich turne" out to be four 1.2 plastic sachets, the t-o 1(2 of -hich -ere e$pt' -hile the other t-o 1(2 containe" suspecte" shabu.5859

Arrai%ne" on ( :ul' (**5, petitioner, assiste" b' counsel, entere" a plea of ;Not %uilt'? to the char%e of ille%al possession of "an%erous "ru%s. Pretrial -as ter$inate" on (. !epte$ber (**5, after -hich, trial ensue". 3urin% trial, Police Officer 5 1PO52 E$$anuel Alte=a an" a forensic che$ist testifie" for the prosecution. On the other han", petitioner testifie" for hi$self an" raise" the "efense of plantin% of evi"ence an" eDtortion.

5859 Rollo, p. )+.

In its +) &ebruar' (**) 3ecision,.8.9 the R,C convicte" petitioner of ille%al possession of "an%erous "ru%s/8/9 co$$itte" on +* March (**5. It foun" the prosecution evi"ence sufficient to sho- that he ha" been la-full' arreste" for a traffic violation an" then sub@ecte" to a vali" search, -hich le" to the "iscover' on his person of t-o plastic sachets later foun" to contain shabu. ,he R,C also foun" his "efense of fra$e-up an" eDtortion to be -ea0, self-servin% an" unsubstantiate". ,he "ispositive portion of its 3ecision hel":
E>ERE&ORE, @u"%$ent is hereb' ren"ere", fin"in% accuse" RO3E< <F ' ON4 GUILTY be'on" reasonable "oubt for the cri$e of violation of !ection ++, Article II of Republic Act No. )+6/ an" sentencin% hi$ to suffer the in"eter$inate penalt' of i$prison$ent ran%in% fro$ t-elve 1+(2 'ears an" 1+2 "a', as $ini$u$, to thirteen 1+52 'ears, as $aDi$u$, an" to pa' a fine of ,hree >un"re" ,housan" Pesos 15**,***.**2. ,he sub@ect shabu is hereb' confiscate" for turn over to the Philippine 3ru% Enforce$ent A%enc' for its proper "isposition an" "estruction in accor"ance -ith la-. !O OR3ERE3.6869

Fpon revie-, the CA affir$e" the R,CAs 3ecision. On +( !epte$ber (*++, petitioner file" un"er Rule ./ the instant Petition for Revie- on Certiorari "ate" + !epte$ber (*++. In a Resolution "ate" +( October (*++, this Court reCuire" respon"ent to file a co$$ent on the Petition. On . :anuar' (*+(, the latter file" its Co$$ent "ate" 5 :anuar' (*+(.

.8.9 3oc0ete" as Cri$inal Case No. R,C (**5-**7GB rollo, pp. )*-+*(. /8/9 See !ection ++, Republic Act No. 1R.A.2 )+6/, or the Co$prehensive 3an%erous 3ru%s Act of (**(. 6869 Rollo, p. +*+.

Petitioner raise" the follo-in% %roun"s in support of his Petition:

&'( &''( THE SE)RCH )ND SEIZURE OF THE )LLEGED SU*+ECT SH)*U IS INV)LID. THE PRESU,PTION OF REGUL)RIT- IN THE PERFOR,)NCE OF DUT- OF THE POLICE OFFICER C)NNOT *E RELIED UPON IN THIS C)SE. THE INTEGRIT- )ND EVIDENTI)R- V)LUE OF THE )LLEGED SU*+ECT SPECI,EN H)S *EEN CO,PRO,ISED. THE GUILT OF THE )CCUSED$PETITIONER /)S NOT PROVEN *E-OND THE RE)SON)*LE DOU*T (sic).G8G9

&'''( &'.(

Petitioner clai$s that there -as no la-ful search an" sei=ure, because there -as no la-ful arrest. >e clai$s that the fin"in% that there -as a la-ful arrest -as erroneous, since he -as not even issue" a citation tic0et or char%e" -ith violation of the cit' or"inance. Even assu$in% there -as a vali" arrest, he clai$s that he ha" never consente" to the search con"ucte" upon hi$. On the other han", fin"in% that petitioner ha" been la-full' arreste", the R,C hel" thus:
It is be'on" "ispute that the accuse" -as fla%%e" "o-n an" apprehen"e" in this case b' Police Officers Alte=a an" Brillante for violation of Cit' Or"inance No. )7-*+(, an or"inance reCuirin% the use of crash hel$et b' $otorc'cle "rivers an" ri"ers thereon in the Cit' of Na%a an" prescribin% penalties for violation thereof. ,he accuse" hi$self a"$itte" that he -as not -earin% a hel$et at the ti$e -hen he -as fla%%e" "o-n b' the sai" police officers, albeit he ha" a hel$et in his possession. Obviousl', there is le%al basis on the part of the apprehen"in% officers to fla% "o-n an" arrest the accuse" because the latter -as actuall' co$$ittin% a cri$e in their presence, that is, a violation of Cit' Or"inance No. )7-*+(. In other -or"s, the accuse", bein% cau%ht in flagrante delicto violatin% the sai" Or"inance, he coul" therefore be la-full' stoppe" or arreste" b' the apprehen"in% officers. D D D.7879 G8G9 Rollo, p. (5.

Ee fin" the Petition to be i$presse" -ith $erit, but not for the particular reasons alle%e". In cri$inal cases, an appeal thro-s the entire case -i"e open for revie- an" the revie-in% tribunal can correct errors, thou%h unassi%ne" in the appeale" @u"%$ent, or even reverse the trial courtAs "ecision base" on %roun"s other than those that the parties raise" as errors.)8)9 First, t0ere 123 4o .25'6 2rre3t o7 pet't'o4er. Ehen he -as fla%%e" "o-n for co$$ittin% a traffic violation, he -as not, ipso facto an" solel' for this reason, arreste". Arrest is the ta0in% of a person into custo"' in or"er that he or she $a' be boun" to ans-er for the co$$ission of an offense. +*8+*9 It is effecte" b' an actual restraint of the person to be arreste" or b' that personAs voluntar' sub$ission to the custo"' of the one $a0in% the arrest. Neither the application of actual force, $anual touchin% of the bo"', or ph'sical restraint, nor a for$al "eclaration of arrest, is reCuire". It is enou%h that there be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, an" that there be an intent on the part of the other to sub$it, un"er the belief an" i$pression that sub$ission is necessar'.++8++9 Fn"er R.A. .+56, or the <an" ,ransportation an" ,raffic Co"e, the %eneral proce"ure for "ealin% -ith a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offen"er, but the confiscation of the "riverAs license of the latter:
7879 I". at )6. )8)9 People v. Saludes, ./( Phil. G+), G(7 1(**52. +*8+*9 RF<E! O& COFR,, Rule ++5, !ec. +. ++8++9 People v. Milado, .6( Phil. .++ 1(**52.

!EC,ION (). onfiscation of !river"s License. H <a- enforce$ent an" peace officers of other a%encies "ul' "eputi=e" b' the 3irector shall, in apprehen"in% a "river for an' violation of this Act or an' re%ulations issue" pursuant thereto, or of local traffic rules an" re%ulations not contrar' to an' provisions of this Act, confiscate the license of the "river concerne" an" issue a receipt prescribe" an" issue" b' the Bureau therefor -hich shall authori=e the "river to operate a $otor vehicle for a perio" not eDcee"in% sevent'-t-o hours fro$ the ti$e an" "ate of issue of sai" receipt. ,he perio" so fiDe" in the receipt shall not be eDten"e", an" shall beco$e invali" thereafter. &ailure of the "river to settle his case -ithin fifteen "a's fro$ the "ate of apprehension -ill be a %roun" for the suspension an"Ior revocation of his license.

!i$ilarl', the Philippine National Police 1PNP2 Operations Manual +(8+(9 provi"es the follo-in% proce"ure for fla%%in% "o-n vehicles "urin% the con"uct of chec0points:
!EC,ION G. Procedure in #lagging !o$n or %ccosting &ehicles 'hile in Mobile ar. ,his rule is a %eneral concept an" -ill not appl' in hot pursuit operations. ,he $obile car cre- shall un"erta0e the follo-in%, -hen applicable: D DD $. If it concerns traffic violations, i$$e"iatel' issue a ,raffic Citation ,ic0et 1,C,2 or ,raffic Jiolation Report 1,JR2. Never in"ul%e in prolon%e", unnecessar' conversation or ar%u$ent -ith the "river or an' of the vehicleAs occupantsB

At the ti$e that he -as -aitin% for PO5 Alte=a to -rite his citation tic0et, petitioner coul" not be sai" to have been ;un"er arrest.? ,here -as no intention on the part of PO5 Alte=a to arrest hi$, "eprive hi$ of his libert', or ta0e hi$ into custo"'. Prior to the issuance of the tic0et, the perio" "urin% -hich petitioner -as at the police station $a' be characteri=e" $erel' as -aitin% ti$e. In fact, as foun" b' the trial court, PO5 Alte=a hi$self testifie" that the onl' reason the' -ent to the police sub-station -as that petitioner ha" been fla%%e" "o-n ;al$ost in front? of
+(8+(9 PNPM-3O-3!-5-+ "ate" March (*+*.

that place. >ence, it -as onl' for the sa0e of convenience that the' -ere -aitin% there. ,here -as no intention to ta0e petitioner into custo"'. In (er)e*er v. Mc art+,+58+59 the Fnite" !tates 1F.!.2 !upre$e Court "iscusse" at len%th -hether the roa"si"e Cuestionin% of a $otorist "etaine" pursuant to a routine traffic stop shoul" be consi"ere" custo"ial interro%ation. ,he Court hel" that, such Cuestionin% "oes not fall un"er custo"ial interro%ation, nor can it be consi"ere" a for$al arrest, b' virtue of the nature of the Cuestionin%, the eDpectations of the $otorist an" the officer, an" the len%th of ti$e the proce"ure is con"ucte". It rule" as follo-s:
It $ust be ac0no-le"%e" at the outset that a traffic stop si%nificantl' curtails the ;free"o$ of action? of the "river an" the passen%ers, if an', of the "etaine" vehicle. Fn"er the la- of $ost !tates, it is a cri$e either to i%nore a police$anAs si%nal to stop oneAs car or, once havin% stoppe", to "rive a-a' -ithout per$ission. D D D >o-ever, -e "ecline to accor" talis$anic po-er to the phrase in the Miran"a opinion e$phasi=e" b' respon"ent. &i"elit' to the "octrine announce" in Miran"a reCuires that it be enforce" strictl', but onl' in those t'pes of situations in -hich the concerns that po-ere" the "ecision are i$plicate". ,hus, -e $ust "eci"e -hether a traffic stop eDerts upon a "etaine" person pressures that sufficientl' i$pair his free eDercise of his privile%e a%ainst self-incri$ination to reCuire that he be -arne" of his constitutional ri%hts. ,-o features of an or"inar' traffic stop $iti%ate the "an%er that a person Cuestione" -ill be in"uce" ;to spea0 -here he -oul" not other-ise "o so freel',? Miran"a v. Ari=ona, 57. F. !., at .6G. F'r3t, 6ete4t'o4 o7 2 motor'3t pur3u24t to 2 tr277'8 3top '3 pre3umpt'.e5y tempor2ry 246 9r'e7. ,he vast $a@orit' of roa"si"e "etentions last onl' a fe- $inutes. A $otoristAs eDpectations, -hen he sees a police$anAs li%ht flashin% behin" hi$, are that he -ill be obli%e" to spen" a short perio" of ti$e ans-erin% Cuestions an" -aitin% -hile the officer chec0s his license an" re%istration, that he $a' then be %iven a citation, but that in the en" he $ost li0el' -ill be allo-e" to continue on his -a'. In this respect, Cuestionin% inci"ent to an or"inar' traffic stop is Cuite "ifferent fro$ stationhouse interro%ation, -hich freCuentl' is prolon%e", an" in -hich the "etainee often is a-are that Cuestionin% -ill continue until he provi"es his interro%ators the ans-ers the' see0. !ee i"., at ./+. +58+59 .67 F.!. .(* 1+)7.2.

!econ", 8'r8um3t248e3 233o8'2te6 1't0 t0e typ'825 tr277'8 3top 2re 4ot 3u80 t02t t0e motor'3t 7ee53 8omp5ete5y 2t t0e mer8y o7 t0e po5'8e . ,o be sure, the aura of authorit' surroun"in% an ar$e", unifor$e" officer an" the 0no-le"%e that the officer has so$e "iscretion in "eci"in% -hether to issue a citation, in co$bination, eDert so$e pressure on the "etainee to respon" to Cuestions. But other aspects of the situation substantiall' offset these forces. Perhaps $ost i$portantl', the t'pical traffic stop is public, at least to so$e "e%ree. D D D In both of these respects, t0e u3u25 tr277'8 3top '3 more 2425o:ou3 to 2 3o$8255e6 ;Terry 3top,< see ,err' v. Ohio, 5)( F. !. + 1+)672, t024 to 2 7orm25 2rre3t. D D D ,he co$parativel' nonthreatenin% character of "etentions of this sort eDplains the absence of an' su%%estion in our opinions that ,err' stops are sub@ect to the "ictates of Miran"a. ,he si$ilarl' noncoercive aspect of or"inar' traffic stops pro$pts us to hol" that persons te$poraril' "etaine" pursuant to such stops are not ;in custo"'? for the purposes of Miran"a. DDD DDD DDD

Ee are confi"ent that the state of affairs pro@ecte" b' respon"ent -ill not co$e to pass. It is settle" that the safe%uar"s prescribe" b' Miran"a beco$e applicable as soon as a suspectAs free"o$ of action is curtaile" to a ;"e%ree associate" -ith for$al arrest.? California v. Beheler, .65 F. !. ++(+, ++(/ 1+)752 1per curia$2. If a $otorist -ho has been "etaine" pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is sub@ecte" to treat$ent that ren"ers hi$ ;in custo"'? for practical purposes, he -ill be entitle" to the full panopl' of protections prescribe" b' Miran"a. !ee Ore%on v. Mathiason, .() F. !. .)(, .)/ 1+)GG2 1per curia$2. 1E$phasis supplie".2

,he F.!. Court in (er)e*er thus rule" that, since the $otorist therein -as onl' sub@ecte" to $o"est Cuestions -hile still at the scene of the traffic stop, he -as not at that $o$ent place" un"er custo"' 1such that he shoul" have been apprise" of his Miranda ri%hts2, an" neither can treat$ent of this sort be fairl' characteri=e" as the functional eCuivalent of a for$al arrest. !i$ilarl', neither can petitioner here be consi"ere" ;un"er arrest? at the ti$e that his traffic citation -as bein% $a"e. It also appears that, accor"in% to Cit' Or"inance No. )7-*+(, -hich -as violate" b' petitioner, the failure to -ear a crash hel$et -hile ri"in% a $otorc'cle

is penali=e" b' a fine onl'. Fn"er the Rules of Court, a -arrant of arrest nee" not be issue" if the infor$ation or char%e -as file" for an offense penali=e" b' a fine onl'. It $a' be state" as a corollar' that neither can a -arrantless arrest be $a"e for such an offense. ,his rulin% "oes not i$pl' that there can be no arrest for a traffic violation. Certainl', -hen there is an intent on the part of the police officer to "eprive the $otorist of libert', or to ta0e the latter into custo"', the for$er $a' be "ee$e" to have arreste" the $otorist. In this case, ho-ever, the officerAs issuance 1or intent to issue2 a traffic citation tic0et ne%ates the possibilit' of an arrest for the sa$e violation. E.e4 '7 o4e 1ere to 1or= u46er t0e 233umpt'o4 t02t pet't'o4er 123 6eeme6 ;2rre3te6< upo4 9e'4: 752::e6 6o14 7or 2 tr277'8 .'o52t'o4 246 10'5e 212't'4: t0e '33u248e o7 0'3 t'8=et, t0e4 t0e re>u'reme4t3 7or 2 .25'6 2rre3t 1ere 4ot 8omp5'e6 1't0. ,his Court has hel" that at the ti$e a person is arreste", it shall be the "ut' of the arrestin% officer to infor$ the latter of the reason for the arrest an" $ust sho- that person the -arrant of arrest, if an'. Persons shall be infor$e" of their constitutional ri%hts to re$ain silent an" to counsel, an" that an' state$ent the' $i%ht $a0e coul" be use" a%ainst the$. +.8+.9 It $a' also be note" that in this case, these constitutional reCuire$ents -ere co$plie" -ith b' the police officers onl' after petitioner ha" been arreste" for ille%al possession of "an%erous "ru%s. In (er)e*er, the F.!. Court also note" that the Miranda -arnin%s $ust also be %iven to a person apprehen"e" "ue to a traffic violation:
+.8+.9 Morales v. ,nrile, (*6 Phil. .66 1+)752.

,he purposes of the safe%uar"s prescribe" b' Miran"a are to ensure that the police "o not coerce or tric0 captive suspects into confessin%, to relieve the ;inherentl' co$pellin% pressures? ;%enerate" b' the custo"ial settin% itself,? ;-hich -or0 to un"er$ine the in"ivi"ualAs -ill to resist,? an" as $uch as possible to free courts fro$ the tas0 of scrutini=in% in"ivi"ual cases to tr' to "eter$ine, after the fact, -hether particular confessions -ere voluntar'. ,hose purposes are i$plicate" as $uch b' in-custo"' Cuestionin% of persons suspecte" of $is"e$eanors as the' are b' Cuestionin% of persons suspecte" of felonies.

If it -ere true that petitioner -as alrea"' "ee$e" ;arreste"? -hen he -as fla%%e" "o-n for a traffic violation an" -hile he -aitin% for his tic0et, then there -oul" have been no nee" for hi$ to be arreste" for a secon" ti$eHafter the police officers alle%e"l' "iscovere" the "ru%sHas he -as alrea"' in their custo"'. Second, t0ere 9e'4: 4o .25'6 2rre3t, t0e 12rr24t5e33 3e2r80 t02t re3u5te6 7rom 't 123 5'=e1'3e '55e:25. ,he follo-in% are the instances -hen a -arrantless search is allo-e": 1i2 a -arrantless search inci"ental to a la-ful arrestB 1ii2 search of evi"ence in ;plain vie-B? 1iii2 search of a $ovin% vehicleB 1iv2 consente" -arrantless searchB 1v2 custo$s searchB 1vi2 a ;stop an" fris0? searchB an" 1vii2 eDi%ent an" e$er%enc' circu$stances.+/8+/9 None of the above-$entione" instances, especiall' a search inci"ent to a la-ful arrest, are applicable to this case. It $ust be note" that the evi"ence sei=e", althou%h alle%e" to be ina"vertentl' "iscovere", -as not in ;plain vie-.? It -as actuall' conceale" insi"e a $etal container insi"e petitionerAs poc0et. Clearl', the evi"ence -as not i$$e"iatel' apparent.+68+69
+/8+/9 People v. (olasa, 5G7 Phil. +*G5, +*G7-+*G) 1+)))2. +6
8+69

!ee People v. Macalaba, ..5 Phil. /6/ 1(**52.

Neither -as there a consente" -arrantless search. Consent to a search is not to be li%htl' inferre", but sho-n b' clear an" convincin% evi"ence. +G8+G9 It $ust be voluntar' in or"er to vali"ate an other-ise ille%al searchB that is, the consent $ust be uneCuivocal, specific, intelli%entl' %iven an" unconta$inate" b' an' "uress or coercion. Ehile the prosecution clai$s that petitioner acce"e" to the instruction of PO5 Alte=a, this alle%e" accession "oes not suffice to prove vali" an" intelli%ent consent. In fact, the R,C foun" that petitioner -as $erel' ;tol"? to ta0e out the contents of his poc0et.+78+79 Ehether consent to the search -as in fact voluntar' is a Cuestion of fact to be "eter$ine" fro$ the totalit' of all the circu$stances. Relevant to this "eter$ination are the follo-in% characteristics of the person %ivin% consent an" the environ$ent in -hich consent is %iven: 1+2 the a%e of the "efen"antB 1(2 -hether the "efen"ant -as in a public or a seclu"e" locationB 152 -hether the "efen"ant ob@ecte" to the search or passivel' loo0e" onB 1.2 the e"ucation an" intelli%ence of the "efen"antB 1/2 the presence of coercive police proce"uresB 162 the "efen"antAs belief that no incri$inatin% evi"ence -oul" be foun"B 1G2 the nature of the police Cuestionin%B 172 the environ$ent in -hich the Cuestionin% too0 placeB an" 1)2 the possibl' vulnerable sub@ective state of the person consentin%. It is the !tate that has the bur"en of provin%, b' clear an" positive testi$on', that the necessar' consent -as obtaine", an" -as freel' an" voluntaril' %iven.+)8+)9 In this case, all that -as alle%e" -as that petitioner -as alone at the police station at three in the $ornin%, acco$panie" b' several police officers. ,hese circu$stances -ei%h heavil' a%ainst a fin"in% of vali" consent to a -arrantless search.
+G8+G9 aballes v. ourt of %ppeals, .(. Phil. (65 1(**(2. +78+79 R,C 3ecision, rollo, p. )+. +)8+)9 aballes v. ourt of %ppeals, .(. Phil. (65 1(**(2.

Neither "oes the search Cualif' un"er the ;stop an" fris0? rule. Ehile the rule nor$all' applies -hen a police officer observes suspicious or unusual con"uct, -hich $a' lea" hi$ to believe that a cri$inal act $a' be afoot, the stop an" fris0 is $erel' a li$ite" protective search of outer clothin% for -eapons.(*8(*9 In -no$les v. Io$a,(+8(+9 the F.!. !upre$e Court hel" that -hen a police officer stops a person for spee"in% an" correspon"in%l' issues a citation instea" of arrestin% the latter, this proce"ure "oes not authori=e the officer to con"uct a full search of the car. ,he Court therein hel" that there -as no @ustification for a fullblo-n search -hen the officer "oes not arrest the $otorist. Instea", police officers $a' onl' con"uct $ini$al intrusions, such as or"erin% the $otorist to ali%ht fro$ the car or "oin% a pat"o-n:
In Robinson, supra, -e note" the t-o historical rationales for the ;search inci"ent to arrest? eDception: 1+2 the nee" to "isar$ the suspect in or"er to ta0e hi$ into custo"', an" 1(2 the nee" to preserve evi"ence for later use at trial. D D D But neither of these un"erl'in% rationales for the search inci"ent to arrest eDception is sufficient to @ustif' the search in the present case. Ee have reco%ni=e" that the first rationaleHofficer safet'His ;Kboth le%iti$ate an" -ei%ht',A? D D D ,he threat to officer safet' fro$ issuin% a traffic citation, ho-ever, is a %oo" "eal less than in the case of a custo"ial arrest. In Robinson, -e state" that a custo"ial arrest involves ;"an%er to an officer? because of ;the eDten"e" eDposure -hich follo-s the ta0in% of a suspect into custo"' an" transportin% hi$ to the police station.? .+. F. !., at (5.-(5/. Ee reco%ni=e" that ;8t9he "an%er to the police officer flo-s fro$ the fact of the arrest, an" its atten"ant proDi$it', stress, an" uncertaint', an" not fro$ the %roun"s for arrest.? I"., at (5., n. /. ) rout'4e tr277'8 3top, o4 t0e ot0er 0246, '3 2 re52t'.e5y 9r'e7 e48ou4ter 246 ;'3 more 2425o:ou3 to 2 3o$8255e6 ?Terry 3top@ . . . t024 to 2 7orm25 2rre3t.< Ber0e$er v. McCart', .67 F. !. .(*, .5) 1+)7.2. !ee also Cupp v. Murph', .+( F. !. ()+, ()6 1+)G52 1;Ehere there is no for$al arrest . . . a person $i%ht -ell be less hostile to the police an" less li0el' to ta0e conspicuous, i$$e"iate steps to "estro' incri$inatin% evi"ence?2. (*8(*9 People v. S+ hua, ... Phil. G/G 1(**52. (+8(+9 /(/ F.!. ++5 1+))72.

T0'3 '3 4ot to 32y t02t t0e 8o48er4 7or o77'8er 327ety '3 293e4t '4 t0e 823e o7 2 rout'4e tr277'8 3top. It plainl' is not. !ee Mi$$s, supra, at ++*B Eilson, supra, at .+5-.+.. *ut 10'5e t0e 8o48er4 7or o77'8er 327ety '4 t0'3 8o4te#t m2y Au3t'7y t0e ;m'4'm25< 266't'o425 '4tru3'o4 o7 or6er'4: 2 6r'.er 246 p233e4:er3 out o7 t0e 82r, 't 6oe3 4ot 9y 't3e57 Au3t'7y t0e o7te4 8o43'6er295y :re2ter '4tru3'o4 2tte46'4: 2 7u55 7'e56type 3e2r80. Even -ithout the search authorit' Io-a ur%es, officers have other, in"epen"ent bases to search for -eapons an" protect the$selves fro$ "an%er. &or eDa$ple, the' $a' or"er out of a vehicle both the "river, Mi$$s, supra, at +++, an" an' passen%ers, Eilson, supra, at .+.B perfor$ a ;pat"o-n? of a "river an" an' passen%ers upon reasonable suspicion that the' $a' be ar$e" an" "an%erous, ,err' v. Ohio, 5)( F. !. + 1+)672B con"uct a ;,err' pat"o-n? of the passen%er co$part$ent of a vehicle upon reasonable suspicion that an occupant is "an%erous an" $a' %ain i$$e"iate control of a -eapon, Michi%an v. <on%, .65 F. !. +*5(, +*.) 1+)752B an" even con"uct a full search of the passen%er co$part$ent, inclu"in% an' containers therein, pursuant to a custo"ial arrest, Ne- #or0 v. Belton, ./5 F. !. ./., .6* 1+)7+2. Nor has Io-a sho-n the secon" @ustification for the authorit' to search inci"ent to arrestHthe nee" to "iscover an" preserve evi"ence. Once Lno-les -as stoppe" for spee"in% an" issue" a citation, all the evi"ence necessar' to prosecute that offense ha" been obtaine". No further evi"ence of eDcessive spee" -as %oin% to be foun" either on the person of the offen"er or in the passen%er co$part$ent of the car. 1E$phasis supplie".2

,he fore%oin% consi"ere", petitioner $ust be acCuitte". Ehile he $a' have faile" to ob@ect to the ille%alit' of his arrest at the earliest opportunit', a -aiver of an ille%al -arrantless arrest "oes not, ho-ever, $ean a -aiver of the ina"$issibilit' of evi"ence sei=e" "urin% the ille%al -arrantless arrest.((8((9 ,he Constitution %uarantees the ri%ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers an" effects a%ainst unreasonable searches an" sei=ures.(5 8(59 An' evi"ence obtaine" in violation of sai" ri%ht shall be ina"$issible for an' purpose in an' procee"in%. Ehile the po-er to search an" sei=e $a' at ti$es be necessar' to the public -elfare, still it $ust be eDercise" an" the la- i$ple$ente"
((8((9 People v. Lapita.e, ../ Phil. G() 1(**52. (58(59 +)7G CON!,., Art. III, !ec. (.

-ithout contravenin% the constitutional ri%hts of citi=ens, for the enforce$ent of no statute is of sufficient i$portance to @ustif' in"ifference to the basic principles of %overn$ent.(.8(.9 ,he sub@ect ite$s sei=e" "urin% the ille%al arrest are ina"$issible. (/8(/9 ,he "ru%s are the ver' corpus delicti of the cri$e of ille%al possession of "an%erous "ru%s. ,hus, their ina"$issibilit' preclu"es conviction an" calls for the acCuittal of the accuse".(68(69 /HEREFORE, the Petition is GR)NTED. ,he +7 &ebruar' (*++ 3ecision of the Court of Appeals in CA-4.R. CR No. 5(/+6 affir$in% the @u"%$ent of conviction "ate" +) &ebruar' (**) of the Re%ional ,rial Court, / th :u"icial Re%ion, Na%a Cit', Branch (+, in Cri$inal Case No. R,C (**5-**7G, is hereb' REVERSED an" SET )SIDE. Petitioner Ro"el <u= + On% is hereb' )CBUITTED an" or"ere" i$$e"iatel' release" fro$ "etention, unless his continue" confine$ent is -arrante" b' so$e other cause or %roun". SO ORDERED.

,)RI) LOURDES P. ). SERENO

(.8(.9 &alde/ v. People, 4.R. No. +G*+7*, (5 Nove$ber (**G, /57 !CRA 6++. (/8(/9 People v. Martine/, 4.R. No. +)+566, +5 3ece$ber (*+*. (68(69 I".

Associate :ustice

EE CONCFR:

)NTONIO T. C)RPIO Associate :ustice Chairperson

)RTURO D. *RION Associate :ustice

+OSE PORTUG)L PEREZ Associate :ustice

*IENVENIDO L. RE-ES Associate :ustice

)TTEST)TION

I attest that the conclusions in the above 3ecision -ere reache" in consultation before the case -as assi%ne" to the -riter of the opinion of the CourtAs 3ivision.

)NTONIO T. C)RPIO Associate :ustice Chairperson

CERTIFIC)TION
Pursuant to !ection +5, Article JIII of the Constitution an" the 3ivision ChairpersonAs Attestation, I certif' that the conclusions in the above 3ecision ha" been reache" in consultation before the case -as assi%ne" to the -riter of the opinion of the CourtAs 3ivision.

REN)TO C. CORON)

C0'e7 +u3t'8e