Characterization of Legal Discourse

A. Conflicting Worldviews














Conflicting worldviews can be seen in the decision of the case People v. Malmstedt. On
one hand, the concurring opinion justified the warrantless arrest by ruling that there existed
probable cause when the police authorities received information that a Caucasian coming from
Sagada is in possession of prohibited drugs, noticed a bulge on his waist, and when Malmstedt
failed to present his passport; thus, warranting the search made on Malmstedt where the
police found him committing a crime for possession of prohibited drugs. The court held that
while it is true that the NARCOM officers were not armed with a search warrant when the
search was made over the personal effects of accused, however, under the circumstances of
the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that accused was then
and there committing a crime.
1


Having a divergent view, the dissenting opinion expressed that there was no probable
cause to actually validate the actions of the police in searching the person of Malmstedt. There
is no showing that a crime is about to be committed, is actually being committed, or has just
been committed. Justice Narvasa opined that there was no evidence to prove or even persuade
that Malmstedt was engaged in a criminal act before conducting the search. Justice Cruz was
also strong in his words when he said that the search was made at a checkpoint established for
the preposterous reason that the route was being used by marijuana dealers and on an
individual who had something bulging at his waist that excited the soldier's suspicion. A valid
arrest should have been made first before a search can be conducted and not the other way

1
PEOPLE V. MALMSTEDT, G.R. No. 91107, June 19, 1991.

Concurring Impetus:
Existence of
Probable Cause

Dissenting Impetus:
No probable cause
existed
around. In the words of Justice Cruz, we cannot retroactively validate an illegal search on the
justification that, after all, the articles seized are illegal that is putting the cart before the
horse.
2


B. Expanding / Contracting the Universe















The court, aside from finding that there was probable cause to search Malmstedt, it
further concluded that depriving the authorities of the ability to act accordingly, including
searching even without warrant, in the light of such circumstances, would be to permit
incompetence and futility in law enforcement, to the detriment of society. From here, it can be
gleaned that the concurring impetus is the duty of police authorities to apprehend suspected
criminals.

On the other hand, the dissenting impetus expresses that the concurring impetus seem
to take something amiss by not taking into full consideration the constitutional safeguards
against warrantless searches and seizures. Police efforts to curb criminality are not in any way
downplayed; however, the bigger picture needs to be looked upon and such efforts must take
account the basic constitutional rights granted to the citizens, even a suspected criminal. In his
dissent, Justice Narvasa stated that disregard of those rights may not be justified by the
objective of ferreting out and punishing crime, no matter how eminently desirable attainment
of that objective might be. Indeed, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and
therefore, it must be upheld primarily.
3


2
Id.
3
Id.
Dissenting impetus:
Upholding the Constitution

Concurring Impetus:
Police measures aimed at
reducing criminality