You are on page 1of 5

13) MARTINEZ V.

PEOPLE City Ordinance during the time of his


G.R. No. 198694 : February 13, 2013 apprehension.

Ramon Martinez y Goco/Ramon Goco y On appeal, the CA affirmed the factual findings
Martinez, Petitioner, v. People of the of RTC and likewise sustained the validity of the
Philippines, Respondent. body search made on Ramon as an incident of a
lawful warrantless arrest for breach of the peace
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: which he committed in the presence of the
police officers, notwithstanding its (the case for
FACTS: breach of the peace) subsequent dismissal for
failure to prosecute.
On December 29, 2007, while PO2 Roberto
Soque, et. al, conducting a routine foot patrol ISSUE:
along Balingkit Street, Malate, Manila, they
heard a man shouting Putanginamo! Whether or not the warrantless arrest was
Limangdaannabaito?. For purportedly violating valid?
Section 844 of the Revised Ordinance of the
City of Manila which punishes breaches of the HELD:
peace, the man, later identified as Ramon, was
apprehended and asked to empty his pockets. In The petition is meritorious.
the course thereof, the police officers were able
to recover from him a small transparent plastic POLITICAL LAW: exclusionary rule
sachet containing white crystalline substance
suspected to be shabu. Consequently, Ramon Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Philippine
was charged with possession of dangerous drugs Constitution enshrines a persons right against
under Section 11(3), Article II of RA 9165. unwarranted intrusions by the government.
Accordingly, so as to ensure that the same
In defense, Ramon denied the charge and sacrosanct right remains revered, effects secured
contented that hile walking along Balingkit by government authorities in contravention of
Street to borrow a welding machine, a man in the said provision rendered inadmissible in
civilian clothing approached and asked him if he evidence for any purpose, in any proceeding in
is Ramon Goco. Upon affirming his identity, he relation to Section 3(2), Article III of the
was immediately handcuffed by the man who Constitution.
eventually introduced himself as a police officer.
Together, they boarded a tricycle (sidecar) Commonly known as the exclusionary rule, the
wherethe said officer asked him if he was above-cited proscription is not, however, an
carrying illegal drugs. Despite his denial, he was absolute and rigid one. As found in
still brought to a precinct to be detained. jurisprudence, one of the traditional exceptions,
Thereafter, PO2 Soque for P20, 000.00 in among others, is searches incidental to a lawful
exchange for his release, unable to give the arrest which is of particular significance to this
money asked for, Ramon was brought to the case and thus, necessitates further disquisition.
Manila City Hall for inquest proceedings.
REMEDIAL LAW: valid warrantless arrest
The RTC convicted Ramon of the crime of
possession of dangerous drugs; finding all its A valid warrantless arrest which justifies a
elements to have been established through the subsequent search is one that is carried out under
testimonies of the prosecutions disinterested the parameters of Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the
witnesses. It also upheld the legality of Ramons Rules of Court14which requires that the
warrantless arrest, observing that Ramon was apprehending officer must have been spurred by
disturbing the peace in violation of the Manila probable cause to arrest a person caught in
flagrante delicto. The term probable cause, justify Ramons warrantless arrest.
specifically with respect to arrests has been
understood to mean such facts and POLITICAL LAW: inadmissible evidence
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an Consequently, since it cannot be said that
offense has been committed by the person Ramon was validly arrested, the warrantless
sought to be arrested. search that resulted from it was also illegal.
Thus, the subject shabu purportedly seized from
Based on the records in the case at bar, PO2 Ramon is inadmissible evidence.
Soque arrested Ramon for allegedly violating
Section 844 (breaches of peace) of the Manila The decision and resolution of the Court of
City Ordinance. Evidently, the gravamen of Appeals is reversed and set aside.
these offenses is the disruption of communal
tranquillity. Thus, to justify a warrantless arrest FROM DEANS CIRCLE:
based on the same, it must be established that
the apprehension was effected after a reasonable RAMON MARTINEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE
assessment by the police officer that a public PHILIPPINES
disturbance is being committed. However, PO2
G.R. No. 198691, February 13, 2013, Perlas
Soques testimony surrounding circumstances
leading to Ramons warrantless warrant clearly Bernabe, J.
negates the presence of probable cause when the Evidence seized from an invalid warrantless
police officers conducted their warrantless arrest arrest shall be inadmissible.
of Ramon.
FACTS:
To elucidate, it cannot be said that the act of
shouting in a thickly populated place, with many - PO2 Roberto Soque, et al. while conducting a
people conversing with each other on the street, routine foot patrol along Balingkit Street,
would constitute any of the acts punishable Malate, Manila, heard a man shouting
under Section 844 of the said ordinance. The Putangina mo! Limang daan na ba ito?. For
words he allegedly shouted "Putangina mo! purportedly violating Section 844 of the Revised
Limang daan na ba ito?" are not slanderous, Ordinance of the City of Manila which punishes
threatening or abusive, and thus, could not have breaches peace, the man, later identified as
tended to disturb the peace or excite a riot Ramon, was apprehended and asked to empty
considering that at the time of the incident, his pockets.
Balingkit Street was still teeming with people
and alive with activity. Further, no one present at - In the course thereof, the police officers were
the place of arrest ever complained that Ramons able to recover from him a small transparent
shouting disturbed the public. On the contrary, a plastic sachet containing white crystalline
disinterested member of the community (a substance suspected to be shabu. Consequently,
certain Rosemarie Escobal) even testified that
Ramon was charged with possession of
Ramon was merely standing in front of the store
dangerous drugs under Section 11(3), Article II
of a certain Mang Romy when a man in civilian
clothes, later identified as PO2 Soque, of RA 9165.
approached Ramon, immediately handcuffed ISSUE:
and took him away.
Whether the warrantless arrest was valid.
In its totality, the facts and circumstances could
not have engendered a well-founded belief that RULING:
any breach of the peace had been committed by
NO. Article III, section 2 of the Constitution
Ramon at the time that his warrantless arrest was
Commonly known as the exclusionary rules,
effected. Thus, no probable cause existed to
proscription is not, however, an absolute and
rigid one. As found in jurisprudence, one of the
14) RILEY VS. CALIFORNIA
traditional exceptions, among others, is searches
incidental to a lawful arrest which is of FACTS:
particular significance to this case and thus,
necessitates further disquisition. David Leon Riley belonged to the Lincoln Park
gang of San Diego, California. On August 2,
2009, he and others opened fire on a rival gang
member driving past them. The shooters then
Based on the records in the case at bar, PO2
got into Riley's Oldsmobile and drove away.
Soque arrested Ramon for allegedly violating
Section 844 (breaches of peace) of the Manila On August 22, 2009, the police pulled Riley
City Ordinance. Evidently, the gravamen of over driving a different car; he was driving on
these offenses is the disruption of communal expired license registration tags. Because Riley's
tranquility. Thus, to justify a warrantless arrest driver's license was suspended, police policy
based on the same, it must be established that required that the car be impounded. Before a car
the apprehension was effected after a reasonable is impounded, police are required to perform an
assessment by the police officer that a public inventory search to confirm that the vehicle has
disturbance is being committed. However, PO2 all its components at the time of seizure, to
Soques testimony surrounding circumstances protect against liability claims in the future, and
leading to Ramons warrantless warrant clearly to discover hidden contraband.
negates the presence of probable cause when the
police officers conducted their warrantless arrest During the search, police located two guns and
of Ramon. subsequently arrested Riley for possession of the
firearms. Riley had his cell phone in his pocket
when he was arrested, so a gang unit detective
analyzed videos and photographs of Riley
To elucidate, it cannot be said that the act of
making gang signs and other gang indicia that
shouting in a thickly populated place, with many
were stored on the phone to determine whether
people conversing with each other on the street,
Riley was gang affiliated.
would constitute any of the acts punishable
under Section 844 of the said ordinance. The Riley was subsequently tied to the shooting on
words he allegedly shouted "Putangina mo! August 2 via ballistics tests, and separate
Limang daan na ba ito?" are not slanderous, charges were brought to include shooting at an
threatening or abusive, and thus, could not have occupied vehicle, attempted murder, and assault
tended to disturb the peace or excite a riot with a semi-automatic firearm.
considering that at the time of the incident,
Balingkit Street was still teeming with people Before trial, Riley moved to suppress the
and alive with activity. Further, no one present at evidence regarding his gang affiliation that had
the place of arrest ever complained that Ramons been acquired through his cell phone. His
shouting disturbed the public. motion was denied.
At trial, a gang expert testified to Riley's
membership in the Lincoln Park gang, the
Consequently, since it cannot be said that rivalry between the gangs involved, and why the
Ramon was validly arrested, the warrantless shooting could have been gang-related.
search that resulted from it was also illegal.
Thus, the subject shabu purportedly seized from The jury convicted Riley on all three counts and
Ramon is inadmissible evidence. sentenced to fifteen years to life in prison. The
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, that draw reasonable distinctions regarding
Division 1, affirmed. when and what information within a phone can
be reasonably searched following an arrest.
ISSUE:
Was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's
cell phone discovered through a search that
violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free
15) BIRCHFIELD VS. NORTH DAKOTA
from unreasonable searches?
FACTS:
RULING:
Danny Birchfield drove into a ditch in Morton
Yes. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote the
County, North Dakota. When police arrived on
opinion for the unanimous Court. The Court
the scene, they believed Birchfield was
held that the warrantless search exception
intoxicated. Birchfield failed both the field
following an arrest exists for the purposes of
sobriety tests and the breath test. He was
protecting officer safety and preserving
arrested, but he refused to consent to a chemical
evidence, neither of which is at issue in the
test. Birchfield was charged with a misdemeanor
search of digital data. The digital data cannot be
for refusing to consent to a chemical test in
used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer,
violation of state law.
and police officers have the ability to preserve
evidence while awaiting a warrant by He moved to dismiss the charge and claimed
disconnecting the phone from the network and that the state law violated his Fourth
placing the phone in a "Faraday bag." Amendment right against unreasonable search
and seizure. In a similar case, police were called
The Court characterized cell phones as
to the South St. Paul boat launch where three
minicomputers filled with massive amounts of
men were attempting to pull their boat out of the
private information, which distinguished them
water and onto their truck.
from the traditional items that can be seized
from an arrestee's person, such as a wallet. The William Robert Bernard, Jr., admitted he had
Court also held that information accessible via been drinking and had the truck keys in his
the phone but stored using "cloud computing" is hands, but he denied driving the truck and
not even "on the arrestee's person." Nonetheless, refused to perform a field sobriety test. He was
the Court held that some warrantless searches of arrested on suspicion of driving while impaired
cell phones might be permitted in an emergency: (DWI) and taken to the police station, where he
when the government's interests are so refused to consent to a chemical test in violation
compelling that a search would be reasonable. of Minnesota state law. Bernard was charged
with two counts of first-degree test refusal
pursuant to state law.
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. wrote an opinion
In a separate incident, Steve Beylund consented
concurring in part and concurring in the
to a blood alcohol to test to confirm he was
judgment in which he expressed doubt that the
driving under the influence after being informed
warrantless search exception following an arrest
it was a criminal offense in North Dakota to
exists for the sole or primary purposes of
refuse a blood alcohol test. The test confirmed
protecting officer safety and preserving
he was over the legal limit, and Beylund was
evidence. In light of the privacy interests at
charged with driving under the influence.
stake, however, he agreed that the majority's
conclusion was the best solution. Justice Alito All three men challenged the state statutes
also suggested that the legislature enact laws criminalizing refusal to submit to a chemical test
and argued that the statutes violated their Fourth However, the same rationale did not apply to
Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable criminalizing refusal to submit to a blood test
searches and seizures when there was no because of the greater degree of intrusion and
probable cause that would support a warrant for the available alternative of the breath test.
the test. Both the Supreme Court of Minnesota
In her partial concurrence and partial dissent,
and the Supreme Court of North Dakota
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Fourth
determined that criminalizing the refusal to
Amendments prohibition against warrantless
submit to a chemical test was reasonable under
searches should apply to breath tests unless
the Fourth Amendment.
exigent circumstances justify one in a particular
ISSUE: In the absence of a warrant, may a state case. In establishing exceptions to the warrant
statute criminalize an individuals refusal to requirement, the Court has routinely examined
submit to a blood alcohol test? whether a legitimate government interest
justified the search in light of the individuals
RULING:
privacy interest and whether that determination
A state statute may not criminalize the refusal to should be made based on a case-by-case analysis
submit to a blood test in the absence of a warrant or a categorical rule.
because, while the Fourth Amendment allows
Based on this analysis, Justice Sotomayor
for warrantless breath tests incident to an arrest
argued that a categorical rule allowing
for drunk driving, warrantless blood tests
warrantless breath tests incident to arrest was
incident to an arrest violate the Fourth
unnecessary to protect the government interest
Amendment. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
of preventing drunk driving because at that point
delivered the opinion for the 7-1 majority.
the driver is off the road and a warrant could be
The Court held that warrantless breath tests are obtained if necessary. Justice Ruth Bader
permissible under the search incident to arrest Ginsburg joined in the opinion concurring in
exception to the Fourth Amendments warrant part and dissenting in part.
requirement because they do not implicate
In his separate opinion concurring in the
significant privacy concerns. They involve
judgment in part and dissenting in part, Justice
minimal physical intrusion to capture something
Clarence Thomas wrote that the search-incident-
that is routinely exposed to the public, reveal a
to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendments
limited amount of information, and do not
warrant requirement should apply categorically
enhance any embarrassment beyond what the
to all blood alcohol tests, including blood tests.
arrest itself causes.
By drawing an arbitrary line between blood tests
Blood tests, however, implicate privacy interests and breath tests, the majority destabilized the
because they are much more physically invasive law of exceptions to the warrant requirement and
-- they require the piercing of the skin -- and made the jobs of both police officers and lower
they produce a sample that can be preserved and courts more difficult.
used to obtain further information beyond the
subjects blood alcohol level at the time of the
test.
The Court also determined that criminalizing
refusal to submit to a breath test is designed to
serve the governments interest in preventing
drunk driving, which is greater than merely
keeping currently drunk drivers off the roads,
and does so better than other alternatives.

You might also like