G.R. No. 116682 - Roblett Industrial Construction Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Virgilio Evardo y Lopena (Evardo) and co-accused Justo Algozo were charged under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”).
The Informations alleged that on March 23, 2004 in Talibon, Bohol, Evardo possessed 0.17 g of shabu (seven sachets) and Algozo possessed 0.49 g of shabu (eighteen sachets), without proper authority.

At about 6:30 PM on March 23, 2004, Police Superintendent Ernest Agas received an unverified tip from an asset that Evardo and Algozo (already under police surveillance and on a drug watch list) would traverse the highway of Banacon, Getafe, Bohol.
Around 8:30 PM, a police team led by P/Supt. Agas set up a checkpoint with inadequate illumination but marked by signboards. They flagged down a tricycle driven by Miguelito Tampos, with Evardo and Algozo in the sidecar.
Officers observed that the two suspects appeared pale and trembling; Algozo allegedly placed an object in the rolled-up rain cover.
A search of the rain cover yielded seven sachets; upon disembarkation and frisking, police found eleven sachets in Algozo’s wallet and seven sachets tucked in Evardo’s underwear. Seized items were marked and inventoried; both were informed of their rights.
The suspects were taken to a hospital for check-up, then to the Talibon Police Station. Laboratory analysis confirmed the substances as methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Talibon, Bohol, found both Evardo and Algozo guilty beyond reasonable doubt, imposing an indeterminate sentence of 12 years and 1 day to 15 years imprisonment plus a ₱300,000 fine each.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed, ruling that the warrantless search fell under the “stop-and-frisk” doctrine and the exception for searches of moving vehicles.
Evardo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the legality of his warrantless arrest, search, seizure, and the integrity of the chain of custody.

Whether the police had probable cause to conduct an intrusive warrantless search of a moving vehicle at the checkpoint.
Whether any exception to the warrant requirement (vehicle exception, stop-and-frisk, plain view, exigent circumstances) justified the search and seizure.

Whether the requirements for the chain of custody under Section 21 of RA 9165 were complied with.
Whether the seized drugs constitute admissible evidence or must be excluded as fruits of an unconstitutional search.