Respondents. G.R. No. 197788 February 29, 2012 Ponente: SERENO, J.

RODEL LUZ y ONG Petitioner, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondents.
G.R. No. 197788 February 29, 2012

Ponente: SERENO, J.:
Constitutional Law – Article 3 Bill of Rights Section 2( right against unreasonable searches and seizure)
FACTS:
At around 3:00 am of March 2003, Rodel Ong Luz was flagged down by PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza of the
Naga City Police Station, for violating a municipal ordinance of driving a motorcycle without a helmet.
Alteza invited Luz to their nearby sub-station. While Alteza and another police officer were issuing a
citation ticket, he noticed that Luz was uneasy and kept on getting something from his jacket, thus, he
told Luz to take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket which was a nickel-like tin or metal
container. After instructed to open the container, Alteza noticed a cartoon cover and something
beneath it; and upon Alteza’s instruction, Luz spilled out the contents suspected as shabu.
Luz was charged of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and later convicted by the RTC of the same
crime. The RTC found that Luz had been lawfully arrested for a traffic violation and then subjected to a
valid search, which led to the discovery of two plastic sachets of shabu. The RTC also found Luz’s
defense of frame-up and extortion to be weak, self-serving and unsubstantiated
Upon review, the CA affirmed the RTC’s Decision.
Hence, this petition filed under Rule 45 for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was no lawful search and seizure on the ground that there was no lawful arrest.
Held:
Yes. There was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he was flagged down for committing a traffic
violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested.
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense. (Sec 1, Rule 113, Rules of Court) It is effected by an actual restraint of the
person to be arrested or by that person’s voluntary submission to the custody of the one making the
arrest. Neither the application of actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical restraint, nor a
formal declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the
parties to arrest the other, and that there be an intent on the part of the other to submit, under the
belief and impression that submission is necessary.
Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing with a
traffic violation is not the arrest, but the confiscation of the driver’s license.
In Berkemer v. McCarty, U.S. Supreme 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. The
usual traffic stop is more analogous to a "Terry stop" than to a formal arrest.
According to the City Ordinance violated, 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. Neither can a warrantless arrest
be made for such an offense.
This Court has held that at the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to
read his Miranda rights. But these constitutional requirements were complied only after petitioner had
been arrested for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
The following are the instances when a warrantless search is allowed: (i) a warrantless search incidental
to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in "plain view;" (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented
warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) a "stop and frisk" search; and (vii) exigent and emergency
circumstances. None of the above-mentioned instances, especially a search incident to a lawful arrest,
are applicable to this case.
While he may have failed to object to the illegality of his arrest at the earliest opportunity, a waiver of
an illegal warrantless arrest does not, however, mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
during the illegal warrantless arrest.
The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are
inadmissible. The drugs are the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Thus, their inadmissibility precludes conviction and calls for the acquittal of the accused.

Respondents. G.R. No. 197788 February 29, 2012 Ponente: SERENO, J.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondents. G.R. No. 197788 February 29, 2012 Ponente: SERENO, J.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Respondents. G.R. No. 197788 February 29, 2012 Ponente: SERENO, J.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RODEL LUZ y ONG Petitioner, vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

G.R. No. 197788 February 29, 2012

Upon review, the CA affirmed the RTC’s Decision.

Hence, this petition filed under Rule 45 for Review on Certiorari.

You might also like