Case Summary (G.R. No. 200465)
Petitioner
Rodel Luz y Ong
Respondent
People of the Philippines
Key Dates
- March 10, 2003: Traffic stop and alleged discovery of shabu
- July 2, 2003: Arraignment; plea of not guilty
- February 19, 2009: RTC conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs
- February 18, 2011: Court of Appeals affirmation
- May 6, 2013: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 2 (search and seizure)
- Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), Section 11
- Republic Act No. 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code), Section 29
- PNP Operations Manual (PNP-DO-DS-3-1, March 2010)
Facts
On March 10, 2003 at around 3:00 a.m., PO3 Alteza flagged down petitioner for riding a motorcycle without a helmet, in violation of Naga City Ordinance No. 98-012. The officer invited petitioner to the police sub-station to issue a citation ticket. While completing paperwork, officers observed petitioner retrieve a small metal container from his jacket pocket. At the officers’ direction, petitioner emptied the container, revealing two plastic sachets of suspected shabu.
Procedural History
Petitioner was arraigned on July 2, 2003 and pleaded not guilty. After pretrial, trial proceeded before the RTC, which on February 19, 2009 found him guilty of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The RTC ruled the arrest lawful and search valid, dismissing petitioner’s defense of frame-up and extortion. The CA affirmed on February 18, 2011. Petitioner then filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the arrest and subsequent search were lawful.
- Whether the presumption of regular performance of duty applies.
- Whether the specimen’s integrity and chain of custody were compromised.
- Whether guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling on Invalid Arrest
The Supreme Court held that no valid arrest occurred when petitioner was flagged down for a traffic violation. Under RA 4136 and the PNP Operations Manual, the prescribed procedure for traffic infractions is the confiscation of the driver’s license and issuance of a citation ticket, not custodial arrest. At most, petitioner was detained briefly “waiting” for a ticket. There was no intent by officers to deprive him of liberty or to take him into custody. Citing Berkemer v. McCarty (468 U.S. 420, 1984), the Court likened the encounter to a noncustodial Terry stop, not a formal arrest requiring Miranda-type warnings. Moreover, City Ordinance No. 98-012 prescribes only a fine for helmet violations—a warrantless arrest for a fine-only offense is impermissible absent intent to incarcerate.
Ruling on Illegal Search
Because no lawful arrest preceded it, the search incident to arrest exception did not apply. The metal container and its concealed contents were not in plain view. There was no valid, voluntary consent: petitioner was alone at the station in the early morning, under the authority of armed officers, and merely “told” to empty his pockets. A stop-and-frisk justification also failed, as that rule permits only a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 200465)
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 32516 dated 18 February 2011 and its Resolution of 8 July 2011.
- The CA had affirmed the 19 February 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, Naga City, convicting petitioner of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs).
- Petitioner’s Rule 45 petition was docketed before the Supreme Court as G.R. No. 197788, argued on 29 February 2012, and decided 6 May 2013 (683 Phil. 399).
Facts
- On 10 March 2003 at around 3:00 a.m., PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza flagged down petitioner for riding a motorcycle without a helmet in Naga City, in violation of City Ordinance No. 98-012.
- Petitioner was asked to accompany the officers to Sub-Station 1 of Naga City Police Station, located almost in front of the flag-down site, while a citation ticket was being prepared.
- While issuing the citation, PO2 Alteza noticed petitioner fidgeting, retrieving from his jacket pocket a small metal container, two cellphones, scissors, and a Swiss knife.
- Upon instruction, petitioner opened the container and emptied its contents: four plastic sachets, two of which contained suspected shabu.
- Petitioner was arrested, charged, and arraigned on 2 July 2003; he pleaded not guilty to illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Issues
- Whether petitioner’s warrantless arrest for a traffic violation was valid.
- Whether the search and seizure of the metal container and the sachets was lawful.
- Whether petitioner consented to any search.
- Whether the chain of custody and presumptions favoring police regularity applied.
- Whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RTC Decision and CA Affirmation
- The RTC found that petitioner was lawfully flagged down, arrested for a city ordinance violation, and subjected to a valid search incident to arrest, resulting in discover