Case Title: People v.

Escao 323 SCRA 754 November 10, 2010

FACTS: During a Comelec gun ban, some law enforcers of the Makati Police were manning a checkpoint. They were checking cars going to Pasay City, stopping those they found suspicious and imposing merely a running stop on the others. At about past midnight, they stopped a Kia Pride car for PO3 Suba saw a long firearm on the lap of the person seated at the passenger seat, who was later identified as Virgilio Usana. They asked the driver, identified as Escano, to open the door. PO3 Suba seized the long firearm, an M-1 US carbine, from Usana. When Escano, upon order of the police, parked along Puyat Avenue, the other passengers were searched for more weapons. They searched yielded a .45 caliber firearm which they seized from Escano. The three passengers were thereafter brought to the police station. Upon reaching the precinct, PO3 Nonato turned over the key to the desk officer. Since SPO4 de los Santos was suspicious of the vehicle, he requested Escano to open the trunk. Escano readily agreed and open the trunk himself using his key. They noticed a blue bag inside it, which they asked Escano to open. The bag contained a parcel wrapped in tape, which, upon examination by National Bureau of Investigation Forensic Chemist Emilia A. Rosaldos, was found positive for hashish. Later, it was found out that Escano was not a liciensed/registered firearms holder of any kind and caliber. Usana, however, was found to be a licensed/registered holder of a pistol colt .45 caliber as certified by the
NAPOLCOM. ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure of the firearms made during the check points by the police officers were valid.

-2-

HELD:

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that not all check points are illegal. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. For, admittedly, routine checkpoints do intrude, to a certain extent, on motorists right to right to free passage without interruption, but it cannot be denied that, as a rule, it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which the vehicles occupants are required to answer a brief question or two. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjective to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individuals right against unreasonable search. In fact, these routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive.

The checkpoint herein conducted was in pursuance of the gun ban enforced by Comelec. The Comelec would be hard put to implement the ban if its deputized agents were limited to a visual search of pedestrians. It would also defeat the purpose for which such ban was instituted. Those who intend to bring a gun during said period would know that they only need a car to be able to easily perpetrate their malicious designs.

The facts adduced do not constitute a ground for a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused against illegal search and seizure. PO3 Suba admitted that they were merely stopping cars they deemed suspicious, such as those whose windows are heavily tinted just to see if the passengers thereof were carrying guns. At best they would merely direct their flashlights inside the cars they would stop, without opening the cars doors or subjecting its passengers to a body search. There is nothing discriminatory in this as this is what the situation demands.

-3-

Jurisprudence recognized six generally accepted exceptions to the warrant requirement: 1) search incidental to an arrest; 2) search of moving vehicles, 3) evidence in plain view; 4)customs searches; 6) consented warrantless search; and 6) stop-and-frisk situations.

There are indications that the search done on the car of Escano was consented by him. Both Lopez and Usana testified that Escano was with the police officers when they searched the car. There was no apparent objection made by Escano as he seemed to have freely accompanied the police officers to the car. The Supreme Court gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution for not only it buttressed by the testimony of Usana and Lopez that Escano freely accompanied the police officers to the car, it is also deemed admitted by Escano in failing to appeal the decision. The findings of fact of the trial court are thus deemed final as against him. Thus, only accused Escano was convicted while Usana and Lopez were acquitted for there was no showing that the two knew of the presence of the hashish in the trunk of the car and besides there are circumstances that militate their conviction.