Unreasonable search

Before a law enforcer can validly search a person or his house and seize the papers, effects or other dangerous items found therein, he must have a search warrant. Anything obtained without such warrant is inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. One exception however is, when a warrantless search is an incident to a lawful arrest. This case of Diego explains that exception.

Diego was accused of kidnapping for ransom. Since he was at large the court issued a warrant for his arrest. To carry out the arrest warrant, a team of four policemen from the Criminal Investigation Division of the Central Police District was dispatched to look for Diego.

After surveillance of several places, the team learned that Diego was staying with his children in a boarding house in Quezon City. So they proceeded and entered the boarding house where they found Diego sleeping. They roused Diego from his sleep, tied his hands and pulled him out of the room with one of them holding him in custody while the others ransacked the locked cabinet where they found a Charter Arms revolver with five pieces of live ammo.

Diego was then brought to the police station for questioning. Upon verification at the Firearms and Explosive Division in Camp Crame it turned out that the firearm was not issued to Diego but was licensed in the name of a private individual residing in Sampaloc, Manila. So Diego was also charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions.

After trial, the court convicted Diego as charged. The main evidence used against him was the seized firearms and ammunitions as well as the certification that it was not licensed in his name. Was the conviction correct?

No. The police officers may have a prior justification for the intrusion inside the boarding house of Diego’s children for they were supposed to serve a warrant of arrest against him. However in this case, they did not just accidentally discover the firearm and ammunition, they actually searched for them.

While a warrantless search may be justified as an incident to a lawful arrest, the seizure of evidence like dangerous weapons must be either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The phrase “within the area of immediate control” means the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. The purpose of allowing a warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach. A gun on the table or a drawer in front of the one who is arrested can be dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in his person. So it can be seized even without a warrant.

In this case however, the officers arrested Diego without any resistance from him by virtue of a warrant of arrest. They placed him immediately under their control by pulling him out of bed and bringing him out of the room with hands tied. The locked cabinet could no longer be considered as an “area within his immediate control” because there was no way for him to take any weapon or to destroy any evidence they could need against him. Thus the search exceeded the bounds of what may be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest. It is illegal as it is in violation of Diego’s right against unreasonable search and seizure. Consequently the firearms and ammunitions obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible as evidence against him. Without the illegally seized firearm and ammunition, Diego’s conviction cannot stand. There is simply no sufficient evidence to convict him beyond reasonable doubt. He should be acquitted (Valeroso vs. Court of Appeals and People, G. R. 164815, September 3, 2009).

*   *   *

Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor and Criminal Laws Vol. I and II are now available at 403 Sunrise Condo, 226 Ortigas Ave. Greenhills S.J. Tel 7249445. Our e-mail address: [email protected]