G.R. No. 104961 October 7, 1994
CONGRESSMAN FRANCISCO B. ANIAG, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SPECIAL TASK FORCE, respondents.

FACTS

In preparation for the May 11, 1992 elections, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2323 (the “Gun Ban”) and subsequently Resolution No. 2327 providing for summary disqualification of candidates for certain firearms-related offenses. Pursuant to the Gun Ban, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives requested petitioner Congressman Francisco B. Aniag, Jr. to return two firearms issued to him. On January 13, 1992, petitioner instructed his driver, Ernesto Arellano, to retrieve the firearms from petitioner’s house and return them to Congress. That same afternoon, Philippine National Police officers manning a checkpoint near the Batasan Complex flagged down Arellano’s car, searched it without a warrant, and found the firearms packed in gun cases inside a bag in the trunk. Arellano was apprehended. The City Prosecutor’s office, after preliminary investigation, recommended dismissal of the case against Arellano and the “unofficial” charge against petitioner. Nevertheless, on April 6, 1992, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 92-0829 directing the filing of an information against both petitioner and Arellano for violation of the Omnibus Election Code and for petitioner to show cause why he should not be disqualified from running. COMELEC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

1. Whether the warrantless search of the vehicle and seizure of the firearms violated constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, rendering the evidence inadmissible.
2. Whether petitioner can be validly prosecuted based on the evidence obtained from the warrantless search.

RULING

1. Yes, the warrantless search was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that while checkpoints and warrantless searches of moving vehicles are not illegal per se, such a search is valid only if it is limited to a visual inspection. An extensive warrantless search requires that the officers have reasonable or probable cause to believe, before the search, that the motorist is a law offender or that they will find evidence of a crime in the vehicle. In this case, the COMELEC did not rebut petitioner’s claim that the firearms were neatly packed and concealed in the trunk. The records showed no facts that would have given the police reasonable cause to suspect a crime was being committed or to justify a thorough search of the vehicle and the package. Therefore, the search violated constitutional rights, and the evidence obtained was inadmissible.
2. No, petitioner cannot be validly prosecuted based on the illegally obtained evidence. The Court ruled that with the exclusion of the evidence obtained from the unlawful search, there was no other competent evidence to support the criminal charge against petitioner. Consequently, the COMELEC resolutions directing the filing of an information against petitioner were annulled and set aside. The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 2327, as the petition could be resolved on other grounds, and the issue of petitioner’s disqualification was rendered moot by his election loss.