Luz v. People

110
recent jurisprudence
RODEL LUZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G. R. No. 197788, 29 February 2012, SECOND DIVISION (Sereno, J.)
The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does
not fall under custodial interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal arrest, by virtue of the
nature of the questioning, the expectations of the motorist and the officer, and the length of time
the procedure is conducted.
Traffic enforcer PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza flagged down petitioner Rodel
Luz for driving a motorcycle without a helmet. Alteza invited Luz to come inside
their sub-station located near the area. While issuing a citation ticket for violation
of municipal ordinance, Alteza was alerted by Luzs uneasy movement and thus
asked him to put out the contents of the pocket of his jacket. Consequently, it was
revealed that Luz was in possession of prohibited drugs.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Luz of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. The RTC added that Luz had been lawfully arrested for a traffic
violation and that he had been subjected to a valid search. Upon review, the Court
of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTCs decision.
Luz, filed a Petition for Review on certiorari before the Supreme Court,
thereafter.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant
to a routine traffic stop can be considered a formal arrest
HELD:
There was no valid arrest of Luz. When Luz was flagged down for
committing a traffic violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely for this reason,
arrested.
At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket,
petitioner Rodel Luz could not be said to have been under arrest. There was no
intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or
take him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the period during which
Luz was at the police station may be characterized merely as waiting time. In fact,
as found by the trial court, PO3 Alteza himself testified that the only reason they
went to the police sub-station was that Luz had been flagged down almost in
u s t l a w l a w r e v i e w, v o l l v i i , n o . 1 , n o v e m b e r 2 0 1 2
p ol i t ic a l l aw
111
front of that place. Hence, it was only for the sake of convenience that they were
waiting there. There was no intention to take Luz into custody.
The United States (U.S.) Supreme Court also discussed in Berkemer v.
McCarty at length whether the roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant
to a routine traffic stop should be considered custodial interrogation. The Court
held that, such questioning does not fall under custodial interrogation, nor can
it be considered a formal arrest, by virtue of the nature of the questioning, the
expectations of the motorist and the officer, and the length of time the procedure
is conducted. Since the motorist therein was only subjected to modest questions
while still at the scene of the traffic stop, he was not at that moment placed under
custody (such that he should have been apprised of his Miranda rights), and neither
can treatment of this sort be fairly characterized as the functional equivalent of a
formal arrest. Similarly, neither can Rodel Luz here be considered under arrest
at the time that his traffic citation was being made.

It also appears that, according to City Ordinance No. 98-012, which was
violated by Luz, the failure to wear a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle is
penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest need not
be issued if the information or charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine
only. It may be stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be made
for such an offense.

This ruling does not imply that there can be no arrest for a traffic violation.
Certainly, when there is an intent on the part of the police officer to deprive the
motorist of liberty, or to take the latter into custody, the former may be deemed to
have arrested the motorist. In this case, however, the officers issuance (or intent
to issue) a traffic citation ticket negates the possibility of an arrest for the same
violation.

If it were true that Luz was already deemed arrested when he was
flagged down for a traffic violation and while he waiting for his ticket, then there
would have been no need for him to be arrested for a second timeafter the
police officers allegedly discovered the drugsas he was already in their custody.
u s t l a w l a w r e v i e w, v o l l v i i , n o . 1 , n o v e m b e r 2 0 1 2

Luz v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luz v. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luz v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

110

RODEL LUZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

You might also like