G.R. No. 244045 , June 16, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JERRY SAPLA Y GUERRERO A.K.A. ERIC SALIBAD Y MALLARI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

On January 10, 2014, at around 11:30 a.m., police received a phone call from a concerned citizen that a person would be transporting marijuana out of Kalinga province. At 1:00 p.m., they received a text message specifying that the transporter was a male wearing a collared white shirt with green stripes and a red ball cap, carrying a blue sack, and on board a passenger jeepney with plate number AYA 270 bound for Roxas, Isabela. A checkpoint was established. After 20 minutes, the identified jeepney arrived and was flagged down. Police saw the accused, who matched the description, with a blue sack in front of him. Police asked about the sack, and the accused admitted ownership. Police then requested the accused to open the sack, which yielded four bricks of dried marijuana leaves weighing 3,953.111 grams.

ISSUE

Whether the search conducted by the police on the accused and his belongings aboard the passenger jeepney constitutes a reasonable search, thereby rendering the obtained evidence admissible.

RULING

The dissenting opinion argues that the search was a reasonable search, not a warrantless search requiring justification under established exceptions. The opinion cites Saluday v. People, which distinguishes a reasonable search (arising from a reduced expectation of privacy, making Section 2, Article III of the Constitution inapplicable) from a warrantless search (a presumably unreasonable search excused by practicality under recognized exceptions). Applying the guidelines from Saluday for reasonable searches of public transport, the dissent finds: (1) the accused was on a passenger jeepney, a public transport where passengers have a reduced expectation of privacy; (2) the authorities properly set up a checkpoint, as guidelines authorize stopping a vehicle en route upon receipt of information a passenger is carrying contraband; and (3) the police did not perform an intrusive search but merely inquired about the sack’s ownership, which the accused admitted, before he opened it. Consequently, the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply, and there is no need to establish probable cause for the search. The dissent concludes the search was reasonable and the evidence admissible.