Scribd
Upload
68 views3 pages

PETITIONERS: People of The Philippines RESPONDENTS: Victor Diaz Vinecario Arnold Roble and Gerlyn Wates

This case involved three men who were found with marijuana after speeding past an election checkpoint and acting suspiciously when questioned by police officers. The police searched the men's backpack and found marijuana wrapped in paper. The men were convicted of drug possession but appealed, arguing the search was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that searches at checkpoints are allowed to maintain public order. It also found the police had probable cause to search based on the men's behavior, making the search valid and the drug evidence admissible.

Uploaded by

Joshua Daniel Belmonte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
68 views3 pages

PETITIONERS: People of The Philippines RESPONDENTS: Victor Diaz Vinecario Arnold Roble and Gerlyn Wates

This case involved three men who were found with marijuana after speeding past an election checkpoint and acting suspiciously when questioned by police officers. The police searched the men's backpack and found marijuana wrapped in paper. The men were convicted of drug possession but appealed, arguing the search was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that searches at checkpoints are allowed to maintain public order. It also found the police had probable cause to search based on the men's behavior, making the search valid and the drug evidence admissible.

Uploaded by

Joshua Daniel Belmonte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

People of the Philippines v. Victor Diaz Vinecario | GR No. 141137 | J.

Carpio-Morales |
January 20, 2004 | Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest
PETITIONERS: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS: Victor Diaz Vinecario; Arnold Roble and Gerlyn Wates,

BUZZWORDS / PHRASES
Vehicular Search Search in Checkpoints, valid

ANTECEDENT FACTS
 Victor Vinecario, Arnold Roble, and Gerlyn Wates sped past a COMELEC Checkpoint
manned by policemen, upon the whistle and order of the police, they rode back to the
checkpoint.
 Upon questioning by the police, Vinecario claims that he is a member of the Philippine
Army but fails to produce any identification card to support this.
 The police officers noted that the three men carried a backpack, and the three were
noticeably acting suspicious and nervous. When asked about the contents of the
backpack, they replied it contained a mat.
 Thinking that the bag contained a bomb, the police officer ordered them to open the
bag and reveal the contents. They saw noticed something wrapped in paper which
they ordered the men to open.
 SPO1 Goc-ong touched the item stuffed in paper but Vinecario grabbed it causing the
paper to tear.
 The smell of Marijuana wafted the air.
 The three men were then taken to the police station for blotter and investigation.

CRIME: Dangerous Drugs (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659)

RTC: Prosecution filed for Violation of Section 4, Article II in Relation to Section 21, Article IV of
R.A. 6425
Ruling: Found the Appellants Guilty as Charged.

DEFENSE
 At the camp, appellants were
investigated by police officials without
the assistance of counsel, following
which they were made to sign some
documents which they were not
allowed to read

Additional Info:
 Vinecario, appealed his conviction stating that the search was not valid since it was
violative of their constitutional right.
 Roble and Wates assert that they did not conspire with Vinecario.
 However, they all the appellants filed for a Motion to Withdraw Appeal but the motion
was denied by the Supreme Court. Ordering them to file their respective briefs.

SC: Pursuant to RA. 7659 Sec. 22 the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC 16 Davao City, is
ordered to elevate the entire records of this case with the Clerk of Court, Supreme Court
Manila, for the automatic review of this Decision.

Ruling: Trial Court Decision is Affirmed.

DEFENSE/APPELLANTS
 Vinecario argues that the prosecution failed to show that the search conducted by
the police officers was incident to a lawful arrest; that he could not have been
deemed to have consented to the search as any such consent was given under
intimidating or coercive circumstances; and that there existed no probable cause to
justify the search and seizure of the backpack,
 Hence, the marijuana is inadmissible in evidence, it being a product of illegal
search.
 Wates and Roble, assert that they did not know the contents of the bag and they
did not conspire with Vinecario.

ISSUE: W/N the search was valid – YES

RATIO
● The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of
certain exceptions, however: Search and/or seizure may be made without a warrant
and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances:
1. search incident to a lawful arrest;
2. search of a moving motor vehicle;
3. search in violation of customs laws;
4. seizure of evidence in plain view;
5. when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and
seizures; and
6. stop-and-frisk situations
 Searches conducted in checkpoints are valid for as long as they are warranted by the
exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists. For
as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body
search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine
checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual's right against unreasonable
search.
 In this case, With the election nearing, the COMELEC issued Resolution 2375 which
imposed a gun ban during the election period. This incident was committed within the
period contemplated.
 Although the general rule is that motorists and their vehicles as well as
pedestrians passing through checkpoints may only be subjected to a routine
inspection, vehicles may be stopped and extensively searched when there is
probable cause which justifies a reasonable belief of the men at the checkpoints
that either the motorist is a law offender or the contents of the vehicle are or
have been instruments of some offense.
 Appellants’ act of speeding away from the checkpoint, and their suspicious behavior
observed during the checkpoint constituted probable cause to justify a reasonable
belief on the part of the law enforcers that appellants were offenders of the law or that
the contents of the backpack were instruments of some offense.

You might also like