G.R. No. 76005 . April 23, 1993.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODELIO C. EXALA, RESTITUTO B. BOCALAN and JAIME P. FERNANDEZ, accused, RESTITUTO B. BOCALAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On November 2, 1982, at about 8:15 p.m., a private jeep driven by accused-appellant Restituto B. Bocalan, with co-accused Jaime P. Fernandez and Rodelio C. Exala as passengers, was stopped at a police checkpoint in Cavite City for routine inspection regarding unlicensed firearms and other prohibited items. Pfc. Ricardo Galang, a member of the inspection team, asked the occupants if there were firearms inside, to which they answered in the negative. While beaming a flashlight inside the vehicle, Pfc. Galang noticed a black leather bag with bulging sides. When asked what it contained, the three accused remained silent and suddenly became fidgety. Suspicious, Pfc. Galang ordered the bag opened and discovered a large quantity of marijuana. The three accused remained motionless and appeared petrified with fear. They were brought to the police station. Laboratory examination confirmed the bag contained more than two kilos of marijuana. The three were charged with violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425, as amended (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City found Bocalan guilty as principal and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P25,000.00. Bocalan appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the admissibility of the marijuana seized from the accused during a warrantless search at a police checkpoint. Related issues include: (1) whether the “stop-and-search” at the checkpoint was constitutional; (2) whether the right against unreasonable search and seizure was waived; (3) whether the arrest was lawful; and (4) whether proof of ownership of the prohibited drug is material to the prosecution.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Restituto B. Bocalan.
1. The “stop-and-search” at a military or police checkpoint is a recognized instance where a search and seizure can be effected without a prior arrest or warrant. The constitutionality of such checkpoints has been upheld. Vehicles are generally subjected to routine inspection, but an extensive search is permissible if there is probable cause, based on the conduct of the occupants, to believe a law has been violated. The Court emphasized this is an exception and does not abrogate the general rule requiring a warrant.
2. The right against unreasonable search and seizure may be waived, either expressly or impliedly. The submissive stance of the accused after the discovery of the marijuana, and their lack of protest when arrested, constituted an implied waiver of this right.
3. The arrest of the three accused was lawful and required no warrant. The arrest was made upon the discovery of the prohibited drug in their possession, i.e., while they were in the act of committing a crime (transporting marijuana). This falls under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, which allows a warrantless arrest when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
4. The trial court’s factual conclusions on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect. The Court found no reason to overturn these conclusions.
5. The objection to the legality of the search and the admissibility of the evidence obtained was waived for not being raised before the trial court. Consequently, the court was bound to admit the evidence.
6. Proof of ownership of the prohibited drug is immaterial in a prosecution for unlawful transportation of marijuana under Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425, as amended. The law does not require ownership for prosecution; it penalizes the act of transporting.
The Court found Bocalan’s defense—that the bag belonged solely to Exala—incredible and contrary to normal human experience, noting his unusual conduct in making a significant detour for someone he claimed to know only by face. Substantial evidence established that Bocalan was caught in flagrante delicto transporting the prohibited drug.
DISSENTING OPINION (Justice Cruz):
Justice Cruz dissented, arguing that a search at an ordinary checkpoint is illegal for lack of probable cause as envisioned in the Bill of Rights. He contended that stopping and searching any vehicle on the mere chance it carries prohibited articles violates constitutional rights. He maintained that respect for the Constitution is paramount, even if it results in some criminals going unpunished, and that an illegal search cannot be retroactively validated by the discovery of illegal articles.