Saluday v People (GR No 215305, April 3, 2018)

                                        Marcelo Saluday v People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 215305, April 3, 2018

Facts:

    On May 5, 2009, the Task Force Davao of the Army conducted an inspection of a bus at a military checkpoint, where Buco (a member of the Task Force), found a suspiciously heavy small, gray-black pack bag on the rear end of the bus. The bus conductor said that the bag was owned by Saluday, and so Buco asked Saluday to open the bag and once Saluday opened it, the bag revealed to have a .30 caliber firearm with ammunition and explosive device. Saluday also failed to present proof of his authority to carry such.

    Saluday claims that he did not own the bag and that his brother (who died in 2009) owns the bag. 

Issue: W/N search conducted by the Task Force was illegal and that the evidence is inadmissible in court.

Held: The search conducted by the Task Force at a military checkpoint constitutes a reasonable search.

        The search of persons in a public place is valid because the safety of others may be put at risk.

    The bus 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. Lastly, Saluday also consented to the baggage inspection when he responded "yes, just open it" when asked if Buco can open the bag. Considering the reasonableness of the bus search, Section 2, Article III of the Constitution finds no application, thereby precluding the necessity for a warrant.

Doctrines:

- Reasonable Search v Warrantless Search

    - both valid State intrusions, even without warrant

    - reasonable search arises from reduced expectation of privacy (in public places, ports,        etc.)

    - warrantless search is an "unreasonable search", but for reasons of practicality, a search warrant can be dispensed with (search incidental to lawful arrest, evidence in plain view, consented search, and extensive search of a private moving vehicle)

- Two-part test that would trigger the application of the Fourth Amendment. First, a person exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy. Second, the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective).

- Where a person does not have an expectation of privacy or one's expectation of privacy is not reasonable to society, the alleged State intrusion is not a "search" within the protection of the Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures.

- Airport searches are outside the protection of the search and seizure clause due to the lack of an expectation of privacy that society will regard as reasonable. There is little question that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel. (People v Johnson)

- seaport searches are reasonable searches on the ground that the safety of the traveling public overrides a person's right to privacy (Dela Cruz v People)

People v Choi (GR No. 152950, August 3, 2006)

 People of the Philippines et al. v. Christopher Choi

GR No. 152950, August 3, 2006

 

Corona, J.:

 

Facts:

            In April 1999, Nieto of DOF applied for a search warrant against Choi for violation of Intellectual Property Code for allegedly possessing fake Marlboro Red cigarettes. Nieto also presented Cavalera and Sealey as witnesses. The warrant was granted by J. Gatbalite, and search was conducted on the same day.

            

Issue: W/N J. Gatbalite gravely abused her discretion by issuing the search warrant based on the testimonies of the witnesses, without requiring the presentation of the fake and genuine items (based on 20^th Century Fox Film Corp. v CA)

 

 

Held: No, J. Gatbalite did not abuse her discretion as she asked questions which were probing. 

            

Since probable cause is dependent largely on the opinion and findings of the judge who conducted the examination and who had the opportunity to question the applicant and his witnesses, the findings of the judge deserve great weight.

 

            The 20^th Century Fox Film Corp case has been superseded by Columbia Pictures, Inc. v CA. 

 

Important:

 

Probable cause means such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

 

Requisites of probable cause

(1) the judge must examine the complainant and his witnesses personally;

(2) the examination must be under oath and

(3) the examination must be reduced in writing in the form of searching questions

 

The examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary, general, peripheral, perfunctory or pro-forma. 

Lindongan v People (UDK-16615, February 15, 2021)

 Amroding Lindongan y Ampatua v People of the Philippines

UDK-16615, February 15, 2021

Perlas-Bernabe, J.:

Facts:

        Lindongan was charged with illegal sale of drugs (in violation of Sec 5, Art II, RA 9165) in December 21, 2009. 

        Prosecution: The drug enforcement unit of Urdaneta City arranged a buy bust operation at 2AM of that day after receiving a tip from a confidential informant. After the exchange of the suspected drugs and marked money, the police arrested Lindongan, apprised him of his rights, brought him to the police station, completed the inventory, and the crime laboratory confirmed that the package contained 0.054g of Shabu. They also asked the Barangay Captain to sign the Confiscation Receipt but the latter rejected this.

        Defense: At 6PM of December 20, a black car arrived at their village and police officers stepped out of the car and frisked Lindongan in front of his house without informing him the reason for the frisk and brought him to the police station.

Issue:

Held: Petition is granted. Lindongan is acquitted.

There were lapses in the chain of custody and witness requirement in drugs-related cases (RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640).

Lapses:

1.  The inventory and photography of the seized items were conducted only in Lindongan's presence 

2. There were no representatives from the media, DOJ and elected public official.

Important: The law requires the proper chain of custody and witness requirement for drug-related cases.

1. Chain of Custody

General Rule: the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same.

Exemption: prove that:

a. there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance

 b. the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved  

2. Witness requirement

 General Rule: inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, as well as: 

a. prior to RA 10640 (July 22, 2014) - media and DOJ and elected public official.

b.  after RA 10640 (July 22, 2014) - elected public official and National Prosecution Service or media

Exemption: arresting officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear.

PAFC v NGCP (GR 224936; September 4, 2019)

 PNOC Alternative Fuels Corporation v. National Grid Corporation of the Philipines

G.R. No. 224936, September 4, 2019

Caguioa, J.

Facts:

    NGCP needed to expropriate a parcel of land in Bataan and Batangas to construct Mariveles-Limay 230 kV Transmission Line Project. 

    The lot is part of the Petrochemical Industrial Park. This Park was originally part of the public domain reserved by the government for the Lamao Horticultural Experiment Station in 1919. The area's administration was finally transferred to PNOC (PD 949). 

  In 2011, NGCP filed a complaint against PAFC to expropriate the land, exercising its right of eminent domain (Section 4, RA 9511). PAFC argued that the land is already used for a public purpose. 

Issue:

(1) W/N PAFC was correct in filing its Rule 45 Petition directly before the Court

(2) W/N NGCP is empowered to expropriate the subject property under R.A. No. 9511.

Held: Petition is denied and NGCP is allowed to expropriate the subject property.

(1) PAFC did not commit a procedural error in filing the instant appeal via a Rule 45 petition directly before the Court. PAFC raises the argument that the expropriation of the subject property by respondent NGCP is invalid because such exercise of eminent domain was neither done directly by Congress nor pursuant to a specific grant of authority. It is readily apparent that this primary argument is legal in nature. The instant Petition may be decided by dealing purely with questions of law.

(2) The Congress may delegate the exercise of the power to government agencies, public officials and quasi-public entities. Section 4 of R.A. No. 9511 is clear, plain, and free from any ambiguity. Respondent NGCP is allowed to exercise the right of eminent domain only with respect to private property. 

Is the subject lot private property? The Civil Code (A419) provides that there are two types of property either public domain (dominio publico) or private ownership (propiedad privado).

Public domain has the following characteristics: 

- outside the commerce of man and, thus, cannot be leased, donated, sold, or be the object of any contract.

- inalienable (cannot be appropriated or alienated)

 Properties of the State which do not have these characteristics are patrimonial properties of the State, that is, owned by the State in its private capacity. It is property held by the State in its private and proprietary capacity, and not in its public capacity, in order to attain economic ends.

The Civil Code also provides three classifications of private property:

1. patrimonial property of the State (Articles 421 and 422)

2.  patrimonial property of Local Government Units (Article 424)

3.  property belonging to private individuals (Article 425)

If land owned by the State is considered patrimonial property, then such land assumes the nature of private property. The Petrochemical Industrial Park is intended and accordingly devoted by law as a commercial and business venture. Under P.D. No. 949, the Petrochemical Industrial Park was explicitly made alienable and disposable for lease, sale, and conveyance to private entities or persons for the conduct of related industrial activities. As such, it is a patrimonial property with the nature of private property and may be expropriated.

Important:

- NGCP's franchise and powers and functions are contained in RA 9511

- Land of the public domain is outside the commerce of man and, thus, cannot be leased, donated, sold, or be the object of any contract, except insofar as they may be the object of repairs or improvements and other incidental things of similar character. Hence, they cannot be appropriated or alienated. Inalienability is an inherent characteristic of property of the public dominion. They cannot be acquired through prescription and cannot be registered under the Land Registration Law and be the subject of a Torrens Title.