G.R. No. 234317, May 10, 2021
Virgilio Evardo y Lopena, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

On March 23, 2004, Police Superintendent Ernest Agas of the Talibon, Bohol Police Station received information from an asset that suspected drug dealers Virgilio Evardo and Justo Algozo (since deceased) had purchased shabu and would be traversing the highway of Banacon, Getafe, Bohol. The two were already on the police watch list and had been subjects of prior surveillance, though a search warrant application was not pursued. A police team set up a checkpoint at 8:30 p.m., identified by a marked vehicle and a “STOP COMELEC CHECKPOINT” sign. They flagged down a tricycle carrying Evardo and Algozo. The officers claimed Algozo acted suspiciously by placing something in the sidecar’s rolled-up rain cover, where seven plastic sachets of white crystalline substance were found. Algozo allegedly tried to run and, upon being frisked, yielded 11 more sachets from his wallet. As Evardo alighted, an officer allegedly saw a sachet tucked at the edge of his underwear’s garter, which contained seven small packs. The seized items were marked and later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Evardo denied ownership, claiming the police found the drugs only after subjecting them to a search where nothing was initially found. The Regional Trial Court convicted Evardo of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which upheld the warrantless search as valid under the stop-and-frisk doctrine and the search of a moving vehicle.

ISSUE

Whether the warrantless search and seizure conducted on Evardo and the tricycle were valid, thereby rendering the evidence obtained admissible.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted Evardo. The warrantless search was invalid. The checkpoint was not a general, routine inspection but a targeted operation based solely on an uncorroborated tip. Probable cause for a warrantless search of a moving vehicle requires a confluence of independent, suspicious circumstances occurring before the search. Here, the claimed suspicious acts (nervousness, furtive movement) were perceived only after the vehicle was stopped based on the tip and the accused’s prior listing. A tip alone, especially from an unnamed asset, does not constitute probable cause. The police’s prior knowledge and surveillance did not substitute for the requisite factual basis for a warrantless intrusion. Since the search was illegal, the seized drugs were inadmissible as evidence. Without the illicit evidence, Evardo’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.