SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES

PAPA VS MAGO, 22 SCRA 857 (1968)

FACTS: Ricardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila, ordered Martin Alagao to conduct
surveillance at the custom zone. The surveillance was due to a reliable information received on
November 3,1966 that a shipment of personal effects, allegedly misdeclared and undervalued,
would be released the following day from the customs zone of the port of Manila and loaded on
two trucks. The goods owned by Respondent Mago were seized by members of the Manila
Police Department without search warrant issued by a competent court. Papa denied the request
of counsel for Remedios Mago that the bales and goods be not examined. The goods were not
subject to seizure under Section 2531 of the Tariff and Customs Code because Respondent had
bought them from another person without knowledge that they were imported illegally. In Civil
Case No. 67496 an order ex parte was issued restraining the petitioners. However, when the
restraining order was received by the respondent, some bales had already been opened by the
examiners of the Bureau of Customs in the presence of officials of the Manila Police
Department.

ISSUE: WON an automobile truck or an automobile could be searched without search warrant

RULING: Yes. The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant in the case at bar.
The Code authorizes persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and
Customs Code to enter, pass through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or building,
not being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and
any trunk, package, or envelope or any person on board, or to stop and search and examine any
vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article
introduced into the Philippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a search warrant
in said cases. Under the instruction of Papa, Alagao and his companion policemen had authority
to effect the seizure without any search warrant issued by a competent court. The guaranty of
freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is construed as recognizing a necessary
difference between a search of a dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a search
warrant may readily be obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile for
contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
PEOPLE vs. CFI of RIZAL 101 SCRA 86(1980)

FACTS: The RASAC Agents succeeded in blocking a light blue Dodge car driven by Sgt. Hope
who was accompanied by Monina Medina allegedly carrying a shipment of highly dutiable
goods from an undisclosed informer. An inspection of Hope’s car revealed that it contained
assorted brands of wrist watches and watch bracelets which were all supposedly untaxed. Seizure
proceedings then ensued. Hope and Medina disclaimed ownership of the goods. It was admitted,
however, that at the time Hope and Medina were apprehended, the RASAC Agents were not
armed with a warrant of arrest and seizure. Thereafter; the City Fiscal of Quezon City, upon
finding prima facie evidence, filed a criminal case against Hope and Medina in CFI Rizal to
which they pleaded not guilty. CFI Rizal ruled that the allegedly smuggled articles as well as the
pictures of such articles were inadmissible as evidence because of a warrantless search and
seizure.

ISSUE: WON the warrantless search and seizure conducted is lawful.

RULING: Yes. The constitutional guarantee involves the right against unreasonable searches
and seizures. However, as what can be deemed from the case at hand, the search and seizure was
reasonable. The RASAC agents were vested with authority under the Tariff and Customs Code.
The agents did not exceed their authority in apprehending the vehicle and seizing the items based
on probable cause. Also, the Court held that there were “rare cases” which can be exempted from
the requirement of a warrant, such as that of a moving vehicle. In applying for a warrant, one
must state the exact and precise location as to where the search is to be conducted. In the case at
hand, it was impossible to determine where such description of a car was to be found. The
circumstances of the case at bar undoubtedly fall squarely within the privileged area where
search and seizure may lawfully be effected without the need of a warrant. Petition granted for
privileged area where search and seizure may lawfully be effected without the need of a warrant.
SALVADOR vs. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 146706

FACTS: A Special Mission Group from the PAF Special Operations Squadron conducted
routine surveillance operations at the Manila Domestic Airport to check on reports of alleged
drug trafficking and smuggling being facilitated by certain PAL personnel. The team leader
reported that the three persons who earlier boarded the Airbus 300 had disembarked with their
abdominal areas bulging and then rode on an airplane tow truck. The team later blocked and
stopped the tow truck. They searched their bodies and found that they were wearing girdles
beneath their uniforms, all containing packets wrapped in packaging tape. The team confiscated
the packets and brought all the accused to the PAFSECOM Office. The petitioner contends that
the warrantless search and seizure conducted was illegal, since they were unaware that a crime
was committed

ISSUE: Won the seized items are admissible in evidence.

RULING: Yes. The case at bar is in a nature of a customs search. The Court ruled that the
exceptions in requiring a warrant before an arrest include: (1) search of moving vehicles; (2)
search in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop-and-frisk
situations; and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The special mission of the officers was to
conduct a surveillance, to act on reports of drug trafficking and smuggling by PAL personnel. In
addition to that, the petitioner and his co-accused were on board a moving aircraft tow truck,
which is also one of the recognized exceptions for a warrant to be dispensed with. It is
impracticable to wait for a warrant to be issued first before a search is conducted for moving
vehicles, since they can easily be moved out of the locality or jurisdiction were the warrant is
sought. Hence, the pieces of evidence obtained are admissible in court to sustain the conviction
of the petitioner.

.
WHREN vs. US, 95-5841

FACTS: In a high drug area, the car of youthful occupants was stopped by police officers due to
suspicions of their temporary license plates. An officer identifying himself as a police officer
directed the driver, James L. Brown, to put the vehicle in park. When an officer peeked to the
driver's window, he immediately saw two large plastic bags of what appeared to be crack cocaine
in Petitioner Whren's hands. Quantities of several types of illegal drugs were retrieved from the
vehicle. Whren and Brown were arrested and charged. At a pre-trial suppression hearing, they
challenged the legality of the stop resulting seizure of the drugs. They argued that the stop had
not been justified by probable cause to believe, or even reasonable suspicion, that they were
engaged in illegal drug-dealing activity.

ISSUE: WON the seizure involving possession of drugs valid, when the vehicle was stopped due
to a violation of the traffic code.

RULING: Yes. The general rule is that the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where
the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. In the present case,
the officers had probable cause to believe that Whren and Brown had violated the traffic code.
An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be "unreasonable"
under the circumstances. It is true that a "reasonableness" determination involves a balancing of
all relevant factors. With rare exceptions not applicable in this case, the result of that balancing is
not in doubt where the search or seizure is based upon probable cause. The making of a traffic
stop out-of-uniform does not remotely qualify as such an extreme practice, and so is governed by
the usual rule that probable cause to believe the law has been broken "outbalances" private
interest in avoiding police contact.
BAGALIHOG vs. FERNANDEZ, 198 SCRA 615

FACTS: Shortly after disembarking at the Masbate Airport, Rep. Moises Espinosa was shot to
death. Witnesses claimed that one of the gunmen rode a motorcycle. On the same day,
petitioner’s house was searched with his consent to see if the killers had sought refuge there. The
search was to no avail. Two days later, the police seized his motorcycle and took it to the
headquarters in Masbate. They had no search warrant. Due to the suspicion that the motorcycle
was one of the vehicles used by the killers, the same was impounded. Petitioner Bagalihog then
filed a complaint for the recovery of the motorcycle. The case is dismissed, the respondent judge
Fernandez asserted he had no jurisdiction over the motorcycle because it was in custodia legis 
ISSUE: WON the warrantless search and seizure of the motorcycle was lawful
RULING: No. The court does not find that the importance of the motorcycle in the prosecution
of the criminal cases excused its seizure without a warrant. The warrantless seizure of the
motorcycles was violative of the right to be let alone by the authorities as guaranteed by the
constitution. It is true that property held as evidence in a criminal case cannot be replevied. But
the rule applies only where the property is lawfully held, that is, seized in accordance with the
rule against warrantless searches and seizures or its accepted exceptions. Property subject of
litigation is not by that fact alone in custodia legis. A thing is in custodia legis when it is
subjected to the official custody of a judicial executive officer. Only when property is lawfully
taken by virtue of legal process is it considered in the custody of the law, and not otherwise.
Hence, Order of the respondent is set aside.