Searches and seizures in moving vehicles: The

curious case of a young lad and an elderly activist

Last week, a post from a young local artist from LaUnion detailing
his experience from an invalid warrantless search during his travel
from Mountain Province to Baguio flood the social media. The
incident happened early in the afternoon of August 25, 2019
(Sunday) somewhere along Tublay near Halsema toll gate. His post
on the social media caused a mixture of alarm and applause during
the first day of posting, alarm; because apparently the search
executed is tinted with irregularities and impunity while some
lauded the heroism and courage of one elderly activist who warded
the young lad from imminent abuse. All where documented by the
young lad and posted the same to his social media account.
Days after the posting, an alternate version was the same posted
online debunking his claims of abuse. The second version was posted
by a certain “Danny Balweg” who averred that he was also on board
the same bus along with the young lad and elderly activist. The
version of “Danny Balweg” quickly spread and was even quoted as
the main source of information by one government media outfit. The
tides quickly turned against this young lad and the elderly
activist. They became the subject of ridicule, threats and
intimidations.
I happen to chance upon this elderly activist in one forum in
Baguio a day after the incident. Likewise, to the young lad,
wherein I had the chance to talk with him over a coffee last August
28, 2019 (Wednesday) right after my work.
For the interest of fairness, I opted to send a message via
messenger to “Danny Balweg” to personally talk with him, however
his account was nowhere to be found. Strangely enough, it seemed
his account was deleted right after his posting. With that in mind,
I based this writing on the narratives given verbally by
aforementioned young lad and elderly activist.
No warrant no search
Generally, under Article III Section 3 (2) of the 1987
Constitution, all individuals enjoy the right against unlawful
searches and seizures. The concept is long been articulated in a
local case here Baguio under People Vs Aruta (288 SCRA 626) where
the Supreme Court stated, that the language of the Constitution
implies that "searches and seizures are normally unreasonable
unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant." The
requirements of a valid search warrant are laid down in Article
III, Section 2 of the Constitution and was also reiterated in Rule
126, Section 4 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Valid warrantless search
This now brings us to the question; when is a warrantless search
valid? Jurisprudence has laid down recognized instances of
permissible warrantless searches, and they are limited to the
following: (1) a warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest, (2) search of evidence in plain view, (3) search of a
moving vehicle, (4) consented warrantless search[es], (5) customs
search, (6) stop and frisk, and (7) exigent and emergency
circumstances.
Searches in moving vehicles
In the case at bar, let’s focus on number three – search of a
moving vehicle. Warrantless searches in moving vehicles are
permissible because police officers cannot be expected to appear
before a judge and apply for a search warrant when time is of the
essence considering the efficiency of vehicles in facilitating
transactions involving contraband or dangerous articles.
Basically, it is allowed when it is not practical to secure warrant
for obvious reasons. Said warrantless searches in moving vehicles
should be coupled by a credible tip provided by a confidential
informant. Simply put, warrantless searches of moving vehicles is
based on tipped information wherein tipped information is one of
the essential ingredient for the execution of a warrantless search
in a moving vehicle.
According to the elderly activist, the young lad was singled out
from the rest of the passengers during the search. The young lad
matching the description [Slim, tall, slightly pale complexion and
long hair] taken from a tip that was cascaded to the officers who
were executing the warrantless search. Along with the tipped
information, it should be also coupled with probable cause in its
execution. All of which must present in the absence of a search
warrant.
The essential probable cause vis-a-vis tipped information
Would the circumstance, along with the credible tip from a
confidential informant, merit a valid warrantless search under
moving vehicles? The answer in the negative. Tipped information,
under People Vs Sapi G.R. No. 200370, the Supreme Court stated
that, “a tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It
is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of
any other circumstance that will arouse suspicion.”
People Vs Sapi made mentioned of the probable cause wherein upon
the establishment or presence of a probable cause, it may prompt
officers to conduct valid warrantless searches. So notwithstanding
the tipped information, did the young lad presented overt acts
and/or suspicious behavior that would give the officers reasonable
ground to believe that a crime was being committed? Again, the
answer is in the negative. The young lad was sleeping when the
officers, who already boarded the bus, saw him and asked him to
open his bag.
Still under People Vs Sapi, it stated, “[When] …the object of a
warrantless search is allegedly inside a moving vehicle [it] does
not justify an extensive search absent probable cause. Moreover,
law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of confidential or
tipped information.”
Indiscriminate searches in moving vehicles are allowed if they are
limited to a visual search. This holds especially true when the
object of the search is a public vehicle where individuals have a
reasonably reduced expectation of privacy. On the other hand,
extensive searches are permissible only when they are founded upon
probable cause. Any evidence obtained therewith will be subject to
the exclusionary principle under the Constitution.
Validity of checkpoints

The Supreme Court, opined that checkpoints, insofar as PNP and

Military is concerned, already ruled that checkpoints are not
illegal per se, as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its
occupants subjected to body search, and the inspection of the
vehicle is merely visual. Take note that the Supreme Court
expressly stated “visual”.

The search which is limited to routine checks — visual inspection

or flashing a light inside the car, without the occupants being
subjected to physical or body searches. In other words, in the
absence of probable cause, the authorities: among others, cannot
compel the passengers to step out of the car, cannot conduct bodily
searches; and cannot compel the motorist to open the trunk or glove
compartment of the car, or any package contained therein.

Moreover, a search of the luggage inside the vehicle would require

the existence of probable cause. On the other hand, no probable
cause is required if the accused voluntarily opens the trunk and
allows the search, as waiver of one’s right against unreasonable
search and seizures is one of the exceptions mentioned earlier.

Now based on the story narrated by the young lad and elderly
activist, there was no validity of the checkpoint to speak of. The
checkpoint that was executed by the police officers was flawed
from the very beginning.

First, police officers composing the check point should not only
be wearing their uniform, but also have their nameplates pinned.
Sadly, in the pictures and videos online most of the search party
who boarded the bus were not in their uniform.

Can those who execute the warrantless search claim that they are
not required to wear their uniforms because they are not the police
but members of a different agency? The answer is in the negative.
They may not be required to wear their uniform but it is obligatory
for them to wear their IDs or names conspicuously displayed for
identification.

Second, when the search party who boarded the bus asked the
passengers including the driver and konduktor to disembark leaving
the young lad, who was sleeping that time while accompanied by the
elderly activist, is a violation of a valid checkpoint. As
discussed earlier, where there is an absence of probable cause,
authorities or the search party cannot compel the passengers to
step out from the car. They are limit to merely visual. That
circumstance alone erodes the validity of the warrantless search
may it be under moving vehicles or check point.

With all that in mind, it is correct for the young lad and elderly
activist to claim violation of their rights under Article III
Section 3 (2) of Constitution. Also, it is worth noting that the
alternate version of one “Danny Balweg” regarding the incident
holds no water for the reason that the same is obviously created
to twist the facts of incident and divert the attention of public
from the real issue at hand.

This has potential to evolve into a very interesting yet very funny
case. Interesting; since those who can file for legal charges, are
not limited only to the young lad and elderly activist, but also
to the rest of the passengers whose travel were interrupted due to
an unfounded checkpoint. Conversely it’s funny, because it is in
this case were we get to see a Government media outfit
accommodating and even publishing a Facebook post/comment as a
legitimate source without even verifying if the source is a real
person or not. They could have at least interview some of those
involved in the search like the police officers.

That’s why, the young lad and the elderly activist, being the
subject of ridicule, threats and were tagged as liars by some
social media netizens, should call on this Government Media outfit
and some of their bashers, to surface their source - Mr. Danny
Balweg, or for the latter to surface himself and present to the
world that he is not a troll intended to mislead or distort the
truth presented by the young lad.

A selfie from Danny Balweg would be suffice. // Rocky Ngalob