Republic of the Philippines

8 Judicial Region
th

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

xx

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES;

Plaintiff; Crim. Case No. xx
For:
-versus- VIOL. OF B.P. 6

xx
Accused.
xx

RESOLUTION

The Demurrer to Evidence filed by the accused is based on the

grounds that:

1) Prosecution failed to prove that the alleged carrying or

possession of a bladed weapon was made in the act of
furtherance or criminality and/or public order;
2) Granting that the bladed weapon was allegedly taken from
the possession of the accused, the same is inadmissible in
evidence, it being a fruit of a poisonous tree; and
3) Prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of
innocence of the accused afforded by the Constitution.

The Prosecution counters that the evidence presented by the

prosecution satisfactorily established the attendance of the second
element of Violation of B.P. 6. Said the People: Verily, the accused
was flagged down by PO3 xx and PO2 xx while the latter were
conducting checkpoint operation, because he forced himself to pass
through the checkpoint despite the directive of said police officers to
momentarily stop or halt, in order for the vehicles coming from the
opposite direction to pass first. Ergo, such actuation of the accused in
disregarding and disrespecting the directive of the police officers
manning the checkpoint is a glaring violation of laws and regulations.
It was the very basis why the accused was flagged down and
thereafter arrested for possession of a bladed weapon and suspected
shabu, which was contained in a transparent cellophane.

After careful consideration of the respective arguments of the

parties, this Court finds that the People has presented evidence that,
if not overcome by the accused by contrary evidence, is sufficient to
convict him of the crime as charged.
It can be deduced that the carrying of the subject bladed weapon
by the accused was in pursuance of a crime which is the alleged
possession of an illegal drug. The confiscation of the bladed weapon
and the illegal substance is not tainted with irregularity because it was
made in the occasion of a valid stop and frisk and police checkpoint
operation. In a related case, the Supreme Court said:

This Court has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are
warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least
intrusive to motorists are allowed. For, admittedly, routine checkpoints do
intrude, to a certain extent, on motorists right to "free passage without
interruption," but it cannot be denied that, as a rule, it involves only a brief
detention of travelers during which the vehicles occupants are required to
answer a brief question or two. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched
nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the
vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded
as violative of an individuals right against unreasonable search. In fact, these
routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive. _
 Here, the police officers simply motioned for the accused to stop
or halt momentarily to give way for the other vehicles to pass first, but
he insisted on passing first which gave rise for a reasonable suspicion
of a commission of a crime. In fact, by not following the police officers
who are manning the checkpoint, accused has already defied an
authority of the law. Indeed, when he was stopped and frisked, which
yielded to the discovery of possession of prohibited items, the
warrantless search is valid because it was an incident to a lawful
arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute
proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. _

WHEREFORE, the Demurer to Evidence is denied for lack of

merit.

SO ORDERED.

IN CHAMBERS, xxx

xxx
Presiding Judge