Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    Saluday Vs PP

    Uploaded by

    Mikee Chan
    The Supreme Court ruled that the search of the bus by Task Force Davao was legal. While a bus is private property, it is accessible to the public and therefore people have a reduced expectation of privacy. The search was also reasonable and non-intrusive, with the soldier merely lifting the bag rather than rummaging through it. Considering the military checkpoint and the need for public safety, no warrant was required for this minimally intrusive search. The Court held that the search did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Saluday Vs PP

    Uploaded by

    Mikee Chan
    22 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the search of the bus by Task Force Davao was legal. While a bus is private property, it is accessible to the public and therefore people have a reduced expectation of privacy. The search was also reasonable and non-intrusive, with the soldier merely lifting the bag rather than rummaging through it. Considering the military checkpoint and the need for public safety, no warrant was required for this minimally intrusive search. The Court held that the search did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.

    Original Title

    Saluday vs pp.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the search of the bus by Task Force Davao was legal. While a bus is private property, it is accessible to the public and therefore people have a reduced expectation of privacy. The search was also reasonable and non-intrusive, with the soldier merely lifting the bag rather than rummaging through it. Considering the military checkpoint and the need for public safety, no warrant was required for this minimally intrusive search. The Court held that the search did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    22 views1 page

    Saluday Vs PP

    Uploaded by

    Mikee Chan
    The Supreme Court ruled that the search of the bus by Task Force Davao was legal. While a bus is private property, it is accessible to the public and therefore people have a reduced expectation of privacy. The search was also reasonable and non-intrusive, with the soldier merely lifting the bag rather than rummaging through it. Considering the military checkpoint and the need for public safety, no warrant was required for this minimally intrusive search. The Court held that the search did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Saluday vs.

    People of the Philippines

    Facts:

    On 5 May 2009, Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task Force Davao of the Philippine Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco Wharf
    in Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco (Buco), a member of the Task Force, requested all male passengers to disembark from the vehicle while allowing
    the female passengers to remain inside. He then boarded the bus to check the presence and intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal firearms or
    explosives, and suspicious individuals. SCAA Buco checked all the baggage and personal effects of the passengers, but a small, gray-black pack bag on the
    seat at the rear of the bus caught his attention. He lifted the bag and found it too heavy for its small size. SCAA Buco then looked at the male passengers
    lined outside and noticed that a man in a white shirt (later identified as petitioner) kept peeping through the window towards the direction of the bag.
    Afterwards, SCAA Buco asked who the owner of the bag was, to which the bus conductor answered that petitioner and his brother were the ones seated
    at the back. SCAA Buco then requested petitioner to board the bus and open the bag. Petitioner obliged and the bag revealed the following contents: (1)
    an improvised .30 caliber carbine bearing serial number 64702; (2) one magazine with three live ammunitions; (3) one cacao-type hand grenade; and (4) a
    ten-inch hunting knife. SCAA Buco then asked petitioner to produce proof of his authority to carry firearms and explosives. Unable to show any, petitioner
    was immediately arrested and informed of his rights by SCAA Buco.

    Issue: Whether the search was illegal

    Held:

    Concededly, a bus, a hotel and beach resort, and a shopping mall are all private property whose owners have every right to exclude anyone from entering.
    At the same time, however, because these private premises are accessible to the public, the State, much like the owner, can impose non-intrusive security
    measures and filter those going in. The only difference in the imposition of security measures by an owner and the State is, the former emanates from the
    attributes of ownership under Article 429 of the Civil Code, while the latter stems from the exercise of police power for the promotion of public safety.
    Necessarily, a person's expectation of privacy is diminished whenever he or she enters private premises that are accessible to the public.

    In view of the foregoing, the bus inspection conducted by Task Force Davao at a military checkpoint constitutes a reasonable search. Bus No. 66 of Davao
    Metro Shuttle was a vehicle of public transportation where passengers have a reduced expectation of privacy. Further, SCAA Buco merely lifted petitioner's
    bag. This visual and minimally intrusive inspection was even less than the standard x-ray and physical inspections done at the airport and seaport terminals
    where passengers may further be required to open their bags and luggages. Considering the reasonableness of the bus search, Section 2, Article III of the
    Constitution finds no application, thereby precluding the necessity for a warrant. Eme

    You might also like