Saluday v.

People

GR no. 215305

FACTS

 On 5 May 2009, Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task Force Davao at a
checkpoint in Davao City. SCAA Buco, a member of the Task Force, requested all male
passengers to disembark from the vehicle while allowing the female passengers to remain inside.
He then boarded the bus to check the presence and intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal
firearms or explosives, and suspicious individuals.

 SCAA Buco checked all the baggage and personal effects of the passengers, but a small, gray-
black pack bag on the seat at the rear of the bus caught his attention. He lifted the bag and
found it too heavy for its small size.

 SCAA Buco asked who the owner of the bag was, to which the bus conductor answered that
petitioner and his brother were the ones seated at the back. SCAA Buco then requested
petitioner to board the bus and open the bag. Petitioner obliged and the bag revealed the
following contents: (1) an improvised .30 caliber carbine bearing serial number 64702; (2) one
magazine with three live ammunitions; (3) one cacao-type hand grenade; and (4) a ten-inch
hunting knife. SCAA Buco then asked petitioner to produce proof of his authority to carry firearms
and explosives. Unable to show any, petitioner was immediately arrested and informed of his
rights by SCAA Buco.

 Petitioner was then brought for inquest before the Office of the City Prosecutor for Davao City.
The latter found probable cause to charge him with illegal possession of high-powered firearm,
ammunition, and explosive under PD 1866.

 During the trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses namely, NUP Daniel Tabura (Tabura), a
representative of the Firearms and Explosives Division of the Philippine National Police, and SCAA
Buco. NUP Tabura identified the Certification dated 5 November 2009 7 attesting that petitioner
was "not a licensed/registered holder of any kind and caliber per verification from records."
Meanwhile, SCAA Buco identified petitioner and the items seized from the bag, and testified on
the details of the routine inspection leading to the immediate arrest of petitioner.

PETITIONER (SALUDAY) RESPONDENT

ON APPEAL TO THE CA

1. Petitioner challenged his conviction

RTC: The trial court declared the Petitioner in actual or constructive possession of firearm and explosive
without authority or license and was adjudged guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of
firearm, ammunition, and explosives under PD 1866.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding Marcelo Gigbalen Saluday
GUILTY of illegal possession of high powered firearm, ammunition and explosive. For the offense of
illegal possession of high powered firearm and ammunition, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an
imprisonment of prision mayor in its minimum period. He is likewise ordered to pay a fine of ₱30,000.00.
For the offense of illegal possession of explosive, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of
prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal. He is likewise ordered to pay a fine of
₱50,000.00.

CA: The Court of Appeals sustained the conviction of petitioner and affirmed the ruling of the trial court
with modification.

(1) for the offense of illegal possession of high-powered firearm and ammunition, he is imposed an
indeterminate sentence of four (4) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision
correccional maximum, as the minimum term, to seven (7) years and one (1) day of prision mayor
minimum, as the maximum term, in addition to the fine of Thirty thousand pesos (₱30,000.00); and

(2) for the offense of illegal possession of explosive, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole.

ISSUE: Whether the search was illegal.

RULING: NO

The bus inspection conducted by Task Force Davao at a military checkpoint constitutes a reasonable
search. Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was a vehicle of public transportation where passengers have
a reduced expectation of privacy. Further, SCAA Buco merely lifted petitioner's bag. This visual and
minimally intrusive inspection was even less than the standard x-ray and physical inspections done at the
airport and seaport terminals where passengers may further be required to open their bags and
luggages. Considering the reasonableness of the bus search, Section 2, Article III of the Constitution
finds no application, thereby precluding the necessity for a warrant.

Petitioner consented to the baggage inspection done by SCAA Buco. When SCAA Buco asked if he could
open petitioner's bag, petitioner answered ''yes, just open it' based on petitioner's own testimony. This
is clear consent by petitioner to the search of the contents of his bag. Hence, there was a waiver of his
right against a warrantless search.

To emphasize, a reasonable search, on the one hand, and a warrantless search, on the other, are
mutually exclusive. While both State intrusions are valid even without a warrant, the underlying reasons
for the absence of a warrant are different. A reasonable search arises from a reduced expectation of
privacy, for which reason Section 2, Article III of the Constitution finds no application. Examples include
searches done at airports, seaports, bus terminals, malls, and similar public ·places. In contrast, a
warrantless search is presumably an "unreasonable search," but for reasons of practicality, a search
warrant can be dispensed with. Examples include search incidental to a lawful arrest, search of evidence
in plain view, consented search, and extensive search of a private moving vehicle.

The elements of both offenses are as follows: (1) existence of the firearm, ammunition or explosive; (2)
ownership or possession of the firearm, ammunition or explosive; and (3) lack of license to own or
possess.22 As regards the second and third elements, the Corn1: of Appeals concurred with the trial
court that petitioner was in actual or constructive possession of a high-powered firearm, ammunition, and
explosive without the requisite authority

Doubtless, the constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right,
which may be waived.44 However, to be valid, the consent must be voluntary such that it is unequivocal,
specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.45 Relevant to this
determination of voluntariness are the following characteristics of the person giving consent and the
environment in which consent is given: (a) the age of the consenting party; (b) whether he or she was in
a public or secluded location; (c) whether he or she objected to the search or passively looked on;46 (d)
his or her education and intelligence; (e) the presence of coercive police procedures; (f) the belief that no
incriminating evidence will be found;47 (g) the nature of the police questioning; (h) the environment in
which the questioning took place; and (i) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person
consenting

Further, in the conduct of bus searches, the Court Jays down the following guidelines. 1âwphi1 Prior to
entry, passengers and their bags and luggages can be subjected to a routine inspection akin to airport
and seaport security protocol. In this regard, metal detectors and x-ray scanning machines can be
installed at bus terminals. Passengers can also be frisked. In lieu of electronic scanners, passengers can
be required instead to open their bags and luggages for inspection, which inspection must be made in the
passenger's presence. Should the passenger object, he or she can validly be refused entry into the
terminal.

While in transit, a bus can still be searched by government agents or the security personnel of the bus
owner in the following three instances. First,  upon receipt of information that a passenger carries
contraband or illegal articles, the bus where the passenger is aboard can be stopped en route  to allow for
an inspection of the person and his or her effects. This is no different from an airplane that is forced to
land upon receipt of information about the contraband or illegal articles carried by a passenger
onboard. Second,  whenever a bus picks passengers en route,  the prospective passenger can be frisked
and his or her bag or luggage be subjected to the same routine inspection by government agents or
private security personnel as though the person boarded the bus at the terminal. This is because unlike
an airplane, a bus is able to stop and pick passengers along the way, making it possible for these
passengers to evade the routine search at the bus terminal. Third,  a bus can be flagged down at
designated military or police checkpoints where State agents can board the vehicle for a routine
inspection of the passengers and their bags or luggages.

In both situations, the inspection of passengers and their effects prior to entry at the bus terminal and
the search of the bus while in transit must also satisfy the following conditions to qualify as a valid
reasonable search. First,  as to the manner of the search, it must be the least intrusive and must uphold
the dignity of the person or persons being searched, minimizing, if not altogether eradicating, any cause
for public embarrassment, humiliation or ridicule. Second,  neither can the search result from any
discriminatory motive such as insidious profiling, stereotyping and other similar motives. In all instances,
the fundamental rights of vulnerable identities, persons with disabilities, children and other similar groups
should be protected. Third,  as to the purpose of the search, it must be confined to ensuring public
safety. Fourth,  as to the evidence seized from the reasonable search, courts must be convinced that
precautionary measures were in place to ensure that no evidence was planted against the accused.

The search of persons in a public place is valid because the safety of others may be put at risk. Given the
present circumstances, the Court takes judicial notice that public transport buses and their terminals, just
like passenger ships and seaports, are in that category.

Aside from public transport buses, any moving vehicle that similarly accepts passengers at the terminal
and along its route is likewise covered by these guidelines. Hence, whenever compliant with these
guidelines, a routine inspection at the terminal or of the vehicle itself while in transit constitutes a
reasonable search. Otherwise, the intrusion becomes unreasonable, thereby triggering the constitutional
guarantee under Section 2, Article III of the Constitution.

To emphasize, the guidelines do not  apply to privately-owned cars. Neither are they applicable to
moving vehicles dedicated for private or personal use, as in the case of taxis, which are hired by only one
or a group of passengers such that the vehicle can no longer be flagged down by any other person unti1
the passengers on board alight from the vehicle.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 26 June 2014 and the Resolution dated 15
October 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 01099 are AFFIRMED.