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)
No comments:
Post a Comment