Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR DIAZ VINECARIO, et al. 420 SCRA 280 (2004)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR DIAZ VINECARIO, et al. 420 SCRA 280 (2004)

On the night of April 10, 1995, as about fifteen police officers were manning a checkpoint at Ulas, Davao City pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 2735, otherwise known as the COMELEC gun ban, a motorcycle with three men on board namely appellant Victor Vinecario (Vinecario), Arnold Roble (Roble) Gerlyn Wates (Wates) sped past of the police officers. When they were ordered to return to the checkpoint, a police officer asked what the backpack contains which the appellants answered that it was only a mat. The police officers suspected that it was a bomb and when appellant opened the bag it turns out that its contents were marijuana. The three were then brought to the police station and later to Camp Catitipan and there they were investigated by police officials without the assistance of counsel, following which they were made to sign some documents which they were not allowed to read. The Regional Trial Court rendered them guilty for transporting, possessing and delivering prohibited drugs under Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659), and imposing upon them the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the search upon the appellants and the seizure of the alleged 1,700 grams of marijuana violated there constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.

HELD:

Although the general rule is that motorists and their vehicles as well as pedestrians passing through checkpoints may only be subjected to a routine inspection, vehicles may be stopped and extensively searched when there is probable cause which justifies a reasonable belief of the men at the checkpoints that either the motorist is a law offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been instruments of some offense. Warrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been declared by the Court as valid, because of existence of probable cause, where the smell of marijuana emanated from a plastic bag owned by the accused, or where the accused was acting suspiciously, and attempted to flee. In light then of Vinecario et al.‘s speeding away after noticing the checkpoint and even after having been flagged down by police officers, their suspicious and nervous gestures when interrogated on the contents of the backpack which they passed to one another, and the reply of Vinecario, when asked why he and his co-appellants sped away from the checkpoint, that he was a member of the Philippine Army, apparently in an attempt to dissuade the policemen from proceeding with their inspection, there existed probable cause to justify a reasonable belief on the part of the law enforcers that appellants were offenders of the law or that the contents of the backpack were instruments of some offense.