Dela Cruz v People (2014, G.R. No. 200748)

Jaime dela Cruz v People

G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014

Dela Cruz was arrested for extortion but he was subjected to drug test which yielded positive results. SC: the drug test conducted was immaterial to the charge of extortion, hence within the protection of the right of the accused against self-incrimination. The drug test in this case is not a purely mechanical act.

Facts:

            Family of a suspect arrested claimed that Dela Cruz attempted to extort money from them, in exchange for the freedom of the suspect. Dela Cruz was arrested in an entrapment operation for extortion but was then subjected to a urine drug testing. The test yielded positive results, and Dela Cruz was charged with violation of Sec 15 of RA 9165. Dela Cruz failed to question the validity of his arrest.

 

Issue: W/N the failure of Dela Cruz to question the validity of his arrest is also a waiver to question the admissibility of evidence obtained during an illegal warrantless arrest.

 

Held: No, a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. 

 

            Therefore, Dela Cruz can question the admissibility of the positive drug test results. The same is inadmissible as evidence in Court because (1) the drug test conducted was illegal, and (2) the drug test is not material to the charge of extortion.

 

Re drug testing of arrested persons (Section 15, RA 9165)

 

            The phrase must be read in consonance with RA 9165: i.e., the person arrested can be subjected to drug testing if they are arrested for unlawful acts listed under RA 9165. Dela Cruz was initially charged with extortion, thus the drug test conducted was not sanctioned by RA 9165 because extortion is not a violation under RA 9165. 

 

Re right of an accused against self-incrimination

 

            This right proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. In its essence is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act.

 

Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required. 

 

In the instant case, a urine sample is not material to the charge of extortion.

Malacat v CA (1997, G.R. No. 123595)

 

Sammy Malacat v CA and People

G.R. No. 123595, December 12, 1997

Malacat was standing among a group of Muslim men in Quiapo whom the police suspected because their eyes were "moving fast". A warrantless arrest cannot be justified where no crime is being committed at the time of the arrest because no crime may be inferred from the fact that the eyes of the person arrested were "moving fast" and "looking at every person" passing by.

Facts:

In August 1990, the police, acting on bomb threats, was on foot patrol in Quiapo, wherein they saw some groups of Muslim men "acting suspiciously with their eyes moving very fast". The police approached a group, who fled in different directions. Malacat was caught and a fragmentation grenade was found in his possession (in violation of PD 1866).

Issue: W/N the warrantless search and seizure was valid.

Held: The warrantless search and seizure was invalid. There was nothing in petitioner's behavior which could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eyes were "moving very fast". 

Such observation is hard to accept as the police were nowhere near petitioner and it was already 6:30 p.m., thus presumably dusk. The police claim the search to be valid as incidental to lawful arrest, but the arrest of Malacat was invalid as it does not fall under any of the exceptions in Rule 113, Section 5 (in flagrante delicto, hot pursuit, or escapee exceptions).

Warrantless searches valid in the following:

1. customs search
2. search of moving vehicles
3. seizure of evidence in plain view
4. consent searches
5. incidental to lawful arrest
6. "stop and frisk"

Stop and Frisk v. Search incidental to lawful arrest

• In a search incidental to a lawful arrest
• the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search
• the legality of the arrest is questioned in a large majority of these cases
• whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a search. 
• Stop-and-Frisk
• "limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons"
• while probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk"

Luz v People (2012, GR No. 197788)

Rodel Luz v People

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

 

Facts:

            In March 2003, Luz was flagged down by the police for driving a motorcycle without helmet, in violation of an ordinance. Luz was invited to the nearby police sub-station, and while he was there, the police noticed that Luz was uneasy and holding something in his pocket. Upon instruction by the police, Luz took out the contents of his pocket, among which was shabu and a swiss knife.

 

Issue: W/N the warrantless search and seizure following an arrest for a traffic violation was valid.

 

Held: There was no valid arrest. Roadside questioning of a motorist is not considered as custodial interrogation nor arrest.

 

Under RA 4136, the general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the driver’s license of the latter. The PNP Operations Manual also provides that in cases of traffic violations, mere issuance of citation ticket or violation report is needed, and there is no need for conversing with the driver. 

 

At the time that he was waiting for his citation ticket, Luz could not be said to have been "under arrest." Arrestis the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. There was no intention to arrest Luz, deprive him of his liberty, or take him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the period during which petitioner was at the police station may be characterized merely as waiting time. 

 

Usual traffic stop is more analogous to “Terry stop”. The comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions of this sort explains the absence of any suggestion that they are subject to the dictates of Miranda. 

There are two features of a traffic stop: 

 

1.     detention of a motorist pursuant to a traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief

 

2.     circumstances associated with the typical traffic stop are not such that the motorist feels completely at the mercy of the police, for instance, because the typical traffic stop is public

 

Lastly, while Luz may have failed to object to the illegality of his arrest at the earliest opportunity, a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not, mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.