G.R. No. 215305 APRIL 3, 2018
MARCELO G. SALUDAY, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On May 5, 2009, a Davao Metro Shuttle bus was subjected to a routine checkpoint inspection by Task Force Davao. SCAA Junbert Buco requested male passengers to disembark. While checking baggage inside the bus, Buco noticed a small, heavy gray-black pack bag. He observed petitioner, Marcelo Saluday, repeatedly peeping through the window towards the bag. When Buco inquired about the bag’s owner, the bus conductor indicated petitioner and his brother, who were seated at the rear. Buco then asked petitioner to board the bus and open the bag. Petitioner complied, revealing an improvised .30 caliber carbine, ammunition, a hand grenade, and a hunting knife. Petitioner could not produce any license or authority for these items, leading to his arrest.
At trial, petitioner denied ownership of the bag, claiming it belonged to his brother. However, he admitted that when Buco asked about the bag’s contents, he replied it contained only a cellphone and subsequently gave permission for Buco to open it. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of illegal possession of firearm, ammunition, and explosive under Presidential Decree No. 1866. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification to the penalty. Petitioner appealed, arguing the search was unconstitutional and the evidence obtained was inadmissible.

ISSUE

Whether the warrantless search and seizure conducted at the checkpoint was valid, rendering the evidence obtained admissible against the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the conviction. The warrantless search was valid under the doctrine of consented search, and the evidence was admissible. The Court held that while checkpoints involve a limited intrusion, a search beyond a visual inspection generally requires a warrant, probable cause, or consent. Here, the search was consensual. The factual findings of the lower courts, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, established that petitioner voluntarily consented to the search. SCAA Buco asked petitioner to open the bag, and petitioner obliged. Petitioner’s own testimony confirmed he gave permission when Buco “asked if he can open it.” This consent, freely given, cured any potential constitutional infirmity from the lack of a warrant.
The Court emphasized that factual findings of trial courts on the voluntariness of consent are accorded great respect. Petitioner’s subsequent denial of ownership was irrelevant to the validity of the initial consent. Having lawfully consented to the search, petitioner cannot later assail it. The discovery of the unlicensed firearm, ammunition, and explosive provided sufficient basis for his warrantless arrest and subsequent prosecution. All elements of illegal possession under P.D. No. 1866 were proven beyond reasonable doubt: the existence of the items and the lack of license or permit, which petitioner failed to show.