GR 113447; (October, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113447 October 9, 1997
ALAIN MANALILI y DIZON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
On April 11, 1988, policemen from the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police Station were conducting surveillance along A. Mabini Street in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery due to information that drug addicts were roaming the area. The policemen, Pat. Romeo Espiritu and Pat. Anger Lumabas, chanced upon a male person (petitioner Alain Manalili y Dizon) who appeared high on drugs, with reddish eyes and walking in a swaying manner. When the petitioner tried to avoid them, the policemen approached, introduced themselves, and asked what he was holding. The petitioner tried to resist but eventually showed his wallet. Pat. Espiritu examined it and found suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. The petitioner was brought to the police headquarters, and the substance was later confirmed by the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section to be marijuana. The petitioner was charged with illegal possession of marijuana residue under Republic Act No. 6425. The defense presented a different version, claiming the petitioner was arbitrarily apprehended while riding a tricycle, searched, and that no marijuana was found on his person, alleging the charge was trumped up. The Regional Trial Court convicted the petitioner, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
The primary issue revolves around the legality of the warrantless search and seizure conducted on the petitioner, and whether the evidence obtained (the marijuana residue) is admissible against him.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that the warrantless search was valid under the circumstances. The policemen, based on their experience and the petitioner’s behavior (reddish eyes, swaying walk, attempt to avoid them), had a reasonable suspicion that the petitioner was engaged in criminal activity. This justified a “stop-and-frisk” procedure—a limited protective search for weapons. The act of the petitioner in handing over his wallet for inspection, after initially resisting, could be construed as a waiver of his right or a consent to the search. The Court emphasized that in rapidly unfolding situations on city streets where there is no time to secure a warrant, law enforcers may employ such limited, flexible responses, provided they remain vigilant in respecting constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The marijuana residue discovered was thus admissible in evidence. The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s defense and upheld the findings of fact and credibility assessments made by the trial and appellate courts.