An illegal search

Joe Pallugna

THE incidents of illegal warrantless searches resulting from warrantless arrests have caused many suspects to get convicted if the defense bungles the appropriate remedies during trial.

Time and again the Supreme Court ruled on what are illegal warrantless searches resulting from an otherwise valid warrantless arrest.

In one case, a man was watching tv at home when police officers came to his house to invite him for questioning at the police precinct as he was the suspect of a murder. When he was at the police station, the policeman frisked him as a security measure and when the policeman felt something inside the suspect’s pocket, he told the suspect to put the object out. When he complied, the policeman found shabu in a sachet. The suspect was charged with violation of R.A. 9165.

During his arraignment, he entered a plea of not guilty and was subsequently convicted and was sentenced to 12 years and one day to 17 years and eight months of imprisonment. On appeal the Supreme Court acquitted him based on an illegal search, and for which the shabu became the fruit of a poisonous tree and was inadmissible in evidence.

The Supreme Court ruled: “A waiver of an illegal arrest, however, is not a waiver of an illegal search. Records have established that both the arrest and the search were made without a warrant. While the accused has already waived his right to contest the legality of his arrest (during the arraignment), he is not deemed to have equally waived his right to contest the legality of the search.

“Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements on when a warrantless search can be conducted. They include: (1) search of a moving vehicle; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs search; (4) waiver or consented search; (5) stop-and frisk situation; (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest and; (7) exigent or emergency situation.

“The search was not among the enumerated circumstances. Certainly, it was not of a moving vehicle, a customs search, or a search incidental to a lawful arrest. There could not have been a plain view as the seized item was allegedly found inside the pocket of the accused. Neither was it a stop-and-frisk situation. While this type may seemingly fall under the consented search situation, we reiterate that that ‘consent to a search is not likely to be inferred, but shown by clear and convincing evidence’. Consent must be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal search.’ That is, the consent must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given, and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.”

This is the clear ruling in the case of Danilo Villanueva versus People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 199042, Nov. 17, 2014.

So the next time that police officers claim that the validity of the search was waived together with the waiver of the right to question the validity of the arrest, the defense counsel knows better. And the accused is then adequately protected.

E-mail: joepallugna@yahoo.com