Luz vs People (2012)

Summary Cases:

● Rodel Luz y Ong vs. People

Subject: There is arrest when there be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other,
and that there be an intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that
submission is necessary; The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic
stop does not fall under custodial interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal arrest, by virtue of the
nature of the questioning, the expectations of the motorist and the officer, and the length of time the
procedure is conducted; At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to
inform the latter’s constitutional rights; Instances for a warrantless search; Circumstances to consider to
determine whether consent to a search was voluntary; When a police officer stops a person for speeding
and correspondingly issues a citation instead of arresting the latter, this procedure does not authorize
the officer to conduct a full search of the car; Waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a
waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest

Facts:

PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza saw flagged down Luz for violating a municipal ordinance which requires all
motorcycle drivers to wear helmet motor vehicle. He invited Luz to come inside their sub-station since
the place where he flagged down Luz is almost in front of the said sub-station. While he and SPO1
Rayford Brillante were issuing a citation ticket, he noticed that Luz was uneasy and kept on getting
something from his jacket. He told Luz to take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket as the latter
may have a weapon inside it. Luz obliged and slowly put out the contents of the pocket of his jacket
containing a nickel-like tin or metal container after Luz was asked to open the container, Alteza noticed a
cartoon cover and something beneath it and upon his instruction, Luz spilled out the contents of the
container which turned out to be suspected shabu.

RTC convicted Luz of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It found the prosecution evidence sufficient
to show that he had been lawfully arrested for a traffic violation and then subjected to a valid search,
which led to the discovery on his person of two plastic sachets later found to contain shabu. The CA
affirmed the RTC’s Decision.

Luz filed under Rule 45 the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and claims that there was no lawful
search and seizure, because there was no lawful arrest. He claims that the finding that there was a
lawful arrest was erroneous, since he was not even issued a citation ticket or charged with violation of
the city ordinance. Even assuming there was a valid arrest, he claims that he had never consented to the
search conducted upon him.

Held:
| Page 1 of 5
There is arrest when there be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and
that there be an intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that
submission is necessary

1. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer
for the commission of an offense. It is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested
or by that person’s voluntary submission to the custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the
application of actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical restraint, nor a formal
declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the
parties to arrest the other, and that there be an intent on the part of the other to submit, under the
belief and impression that submission is necessary.

2. Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for
dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the driver’s
license of the latter. Similarly, the PNP Operations Manual provides that the officer, if it concerns
traffic violations, immediately issue a Traffic Citation Ticket or Traffic Violation Report. Never
indulge in prolonged, unnecessary conversation or argument with the driver or any of the
vehicle’s occupants.

3. In this case, at the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket, Luz could
not be said to have been “under arrest.” There was no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to
arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or take him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket,
the period during which Luz was at the police station may be characterized merely as waiting
time. In fact, as found by the trial court, PO3 Alteza himself testified that the only reason they
went to the police sub-station was that Luz had been flagged down “almost in front” of that place.
Hence, it was only for the sake of convenience that they were waiting there. There was no
intention to take Luz into custody.

The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not fall
under custodial interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal arrest, by virtue of the nature of
the questioning, the expectations of the motorist and the officer, and the length of time the
procedure is conducted

4. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to
a routine traffic stop does not fall under custodial interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal
arrest, by virtue of the nature of the questioning, the expectations of the motorist and the officer,
and the length of time the procedure is conducted. It also thus ruled that, since the motorist
therein was only subjected to modest questions while still at the scene of the traffic stop, he was
not at that moment placed under custody (such that he should have been apprised of his Miranda
rights), and neither can treatment of this sort be fairly characterized as the functional equivalent
of a formal arrest. (See Berkemer v. McCarty)
| Page 2 of 5
5. According to City Ordinance No. 98-012, which was violated by Luz, the failure to wear a crash
helmet while riding a motorcycle is penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules of Court, a warrant
of arrest need not be issued if the information or charge was filed for an offense penalized by a
fine only. It may be stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such
an offense.

At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter’s
constitutional rights

6. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter
of the reason for the arrest and must show that person the warrant of arrest, if any. Persons shall
be informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement
they might make could be used against them.

7. In this case, the police officers informed these constitutional requirements only after Luz had
been arrested for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

Instances for a warrantless search

8. None of the following instances when a warrantless search is allowed, especially a search
incident to a lawful arrest, are applicable to this case:

(a) a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

(b) search of evidence in “plain view;”

(c ) search of a moving vehicle;

(d) consented warrantless search;

(e) customs search;

(f) a “stop and frisk” search; and

(g) exigent and emergency circumstances.

9. It must be noted that the evidence seized, although alleged to be inadvertently discovered, was
| Page 3 of 5
not in “plain view.” It was actually concealed inside a metal container inside Luz’s pocket. Clearly,
the evidence was not immediately apparent.

Circumstances to consider to determine whether consent to a search was voluntary

10. Neither was there a consented warrantless search. Consent to a search is not to be lightly
inferred, but shown by clear and convincing evidence. It 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.

11. Whether consent to the search was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined
from the totality of all the circumstances. Relevant to this determination are the following
characteristics of the person giving consent and the environment in which consent is given:

(a) the age of the defendant;

(b) whether the defendant was in a public or a secluded location;

(c ) whether the defendant objected to the search or passively looked on;

(d) the education and intelligence of the defendant;

(e) the presence of coercive police procedures;

(f) the defendant’s belief that no incriminating evidence would be found;

(g) the nature of the police questioning;

(h) the environment in which the questioning took place; and

(i) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting. It is the State that has the
burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained, and
was freely and voluntarily given.

12. In this case, while the prosecution claims that Luz acceded to the instruction of PO3 Alteza, this
alleged accession does not suffice to prove valid and intelligent consent. In fact, the RTC found that Luz
was merely “told” to take out the contents of his pocket. Also, all that was alleged was that Luz was
alone at the police station at three in the morning, accompanied by several police officers. These
circumstances weigh heavily against a finding of valid consent to a warrantless search.

| Page 4 of 5
13. Neither does the search qualify under the “stop and frisk” rule. While the rule normally applies when
a police officer observes suspicious or unusual conduct, which may lead him to believe that a criminal
act may be afoot, the stop and frisk is merely a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons.

When a police officer stops a person for speeding and correspondingly issues a citation instead
of arresting the latter, this procedure does not authorize the officer to conduct a full search of the
car

14. When a police officer stops a person for speeding and correspondingly issues a citation
instead of arresting the latter, this procedure does not authorize the officer to conduct a full
search of the car. The U.S. Supreme Court held that there was no justification for a full-blown
search when the officer does not arrest the motorist. Instead, police officers may only conduct
minimal intrusions, such as ordering the motorist to alight from the car or doing a patdown. (See
Knowles v. Iowa)

Waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence
seized during the illegal warrantless arrest

15. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Any evidence obtained in
violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. While the power
to search and seize may at times be necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and
the law implemented without contravening the constitutional rights of citizens, for the
enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles
of government.

16. While Luz may have failed to object to the illegality of his arrest at the earliest opportunity, a
waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not, however, mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of
evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest. The subject items seized during the illegal
arrest are inadmissible. The drugs are the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. Thus, their inadmissibility precludes conviction and calls for the acquittal of
the accused.

| Page 5 of 5