CASE BRIEFS

People of the Philippines vs Jerry Sapla

G.R. No. 244045. June 16, 2020
Caguioa, J. :

Facts:

Accused Jerry Sapla was charged of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165

or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

A tipped information from an anonymous person was received by the

authorities through the duty on guard which stated that the subject male person

wearing a collared white shirt with green stripes, red ball cap and was carrying a

blue sack on board a passenger jeepney would transport marijuana . The authorities

then organized a team and proceeded to the Talaca detachment. Said accused, did

then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, control

and custody four bricks of marijuana leaves, a dangerous drug, with a total net

weight of 3,9563.11 grams and transport in transit through a passenger jeepney with

a plate number AYA 270 the said marijuana without the license, permit or authority

from any government entity or agency. Accused pleaded not guilty to the crime

charged against him.

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 1

 Regional Trial Court ruled against accused which the Court of Appeals

affirmed with modifications.

Issue:

Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure conducted by the police

officers.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed and set aside the

decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting the accused of the crime charged against

him.

Analysis:

The search and seizure conducted by the authorities in the instant case is not

a valid warrantless search of a moving vehicle. In this particular type of search, the

vehicle is the target and not a specific person. According to jurisprudence,

“warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are allowed in recognition of the

impracticability of securing a warrant under said circumstances as the vehicle can

be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be

sought. Peace officers in such cases, however, are limited to routine checks where

the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection. Such warrantless

search has been held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 2

have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the

instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched.” The

situation presented in the instant case cannot be considered as a search of a moving

vehicle. The Court stressed the right of the people against unreasonable searches and

seizures found in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and

effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and

for any purpose shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined

personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the

complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly

describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

The singular circumstance that engendered probable cause on the part of the

police officers was the information they received through the RPSB Hotline via text

message from an anonymous person.

Law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of confidential or tipped

information. A tip is still a hearsay no matter it may be. It is not sufficient to

constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arouse

suspicion.

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 3

Conclusion:

Therefore, with the glaring absence of probable cause that justifies an

intrusive warrantless search, considering that the police officers failed to rely on

their personal knowledge and depended solely on an unverified and anonymous tip,

the warrantless search conducted on accused Sapla was invalid and unlawful search

of a moving vehicle.

Seperate Opinions

LEONEN, J., concurring:

To aid courts in upholding the constitutional right against unreasonable

searches, 2 doctrines that were often invoked to justify warrantless searches of

passengers on moving vehicles were revisited by Justice Leonen: (1) stop-and-frisk

searches based on probable cause, genuine reason, or reasonable suspicion; and (2)

search of a moving vehicle.

Philippine doctrine on stop-and-frisk searches originates in the American case

of Terry v. Ohio where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a limited search

was permissible when preceded by unusual conduct that, by virtue of a police

officer's experience, led him to reasonably conclude that criminal activity was afoot,

and the person to be searched may have been armed and dangerous.

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 4

 Several cases were decided in the Philippines throughout the years to

emphasize that for a stop-and-frisk search to be reasonable, a police officer's

suspicion must be based on a "genuine reason". The Concept of Genuine

Reason was further elaborated by Justice Artemio Panganiban's concurring opinion

in the case of Manalili v. Court of Appeals where he stated that there was sufficient

genuine reason to stop and frisk the suspect when the specially trained enforcers saw

Manalili with reddish eyes and walking in a wobbly manner characteristic of a

person high on drugs per their experience, and in a known hangout of drug users.

Under different circumstances, such as where the policemen are not specially trained

and in common places where people ordinarily converge, the same features

displayed by a person will not normally justify a warrantless arrest or search on him.

Thus, to not violate the constitutional right against unreasonable searches, an

officer during the stop-and-frisk search must observe more than one circumstance

since reliance on only one suspicious circumstance or none at all will not result in a

reasonable search.

Considering this requirement and applying it in the case at bar: (1) the

information provided by a confidential informant, without additional grounds for

suspicion, is not enough to arouse suspicion that may be characterized as reasonable,

and that (2) a person matching the informant's tip is not an additional circumstance

separate from the fact that information was given because it is just a part and parcel

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 5

of one strand of information. Therefore, the search conducted on accused-appellant

Jerry Sapla y Guerrero a.k.a. Eric Salibad y Mallari was unreasonable.

LAZARO-JAVIER, J., dissenting:

Justice Lazaro-Javier cannot concur in the decision to acquit accused-

appellant Jerry Sapla y Guerrero a.k.a. Eric Salibad y Mallari of the charge of

transporting marijuana through a public jeepney for the following reasons:

First, the police officers did not just rely upon one suspicious circumstance

and not just upon the unverified "tip". The tip was verified by a subsequent tip

describing in detail the person who was actually riding the passenger jeepney and

the sack he was actually carrying. The tip was also verified by the exact match of

the tip with the description of the passenger whom the police officers were targeting

and actually approached.

Next, the police officers did not conduct an intrusive search of the passenger

jeepney because the object of their surveillance and search was targeted to a very

specific individual. The police officers were situated along the silk road of marijuana

transportation that they could not have lightly ignored. They relied upon their

personal knowledge of what they were then perceiving to be a suspicious bulky sack

and the actual contents thereof through a visual and minimally intrusive observation.

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 6

Appellant did not even protest that he was carrying something else had this been the

case.

Third, the statement, "The law is heavily in favor of the accused", citing the

presumption of innocence is inappropriate in the present case. The burden of the

prosecution was only to prove the search to be reasonable — the standard of proof

is simply one of probable cause. Probable cause requires a fair probability that

contraband or evidence of a crime will be found — whether a fair-minded evaluator

would have reason to find it more likely than not that a fact is true, which is

quantified as a fifty-one percent (51%) certainty standard.

The statement does disservice to years of jurisprudence that, while

recognizing the Bill of Rights to be a check on government power, has taken stock

of the varying interests that require balancing if not accommodation. Effective law

enforcement is a legitimate interest that is not less favored by the law.

Justice Lazaro-Javier is hoping that the decision reached in the present case

does not dishearten the legitimate enthusiasm of Philippine police forces in law

enforcement.

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 7

 Jaime Araza vs People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 247429. September 8, 2020
Peralta, C. J. :

Facts:
AAA instituted a case against her husband, Araza and his alleged mistress,

Fabillar at the Philippine National Police. The case was subsequently amicably

settled after Araza and Fabillar executed an Agreement whereby Araza and Fabillar

committed themselves never to see each other again. After the case was settled,

Araza lived again with AAA for a short time and left without saying a word. AAA

searched for Araza and out of desperation she sought the help of NBI to search for

him. To her surprise, Araza had returned to live with his mistress again. AAA

received messages from various numbers stating the condition of her husband being

sick and in need of money and threatening to kill her husband. AAA was emotionally

depressed and anxious of her husband’s condition believing that Araza’s liberty was

being restrained by Fabillar. AAA claimed that she is taking anti-depressant and

sleeping pills to cope with her severe emotional and psychological turmoil brought

about by Araza’s marital infidelity and having children with his mistress. Araza

denied having an affair and children with Fabillar. Araza claimed that he left his wife

because he could no longer stand her attitude. Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of

AAA. Araza appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 8

Issues:

1) Whether or not Araza may be convicted for violation of Section 5 (i) of R.A.

No. 9262 although his conviction was based on facts not alleged in the

Information.

2) Whether or not CA gravely erred in affirming Araza's conviction for violation

of Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262 on the ground that the prosecution failed to

prove beyond reasonable doubt the acts allegedly committed by Araza.

Ruling:

The petition is denied for failure of the petitioner to show any reversible error

in the assailed CA Decision.

Analysis:

Araza is correct that he cannot be convicted based on acts of abandonment of

the conjugal home, and pretenses that he was forcefully detained. These were not

alleged in the Information. However, there were other acts alleged in the Information

that caused emotional anguish and mental suffering on AAA.

In this case, the Court finds that the Information contains the recital of facts

necessary to constitute the crime charged. It clearly stated that: (1) The offended

party AAA, is the wife of offender Araza; (2) AAA sustained emotional anguish and

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 9

mental suffering; and (3) such anguish and suffering is inflicted by Araza when he

had an extramarital affair with Fabillar and had three illegitimate children with her.

The prosecution has established Araza's guilt beyond reasonable doubt by proving

that he committed psychological violence upon his wife by committing marital

infidelity. AAA's testimony was strong and credible. She was able to confirm that

Araza was living with another woman. Araza can only offer the defense of denial.

Psychological violence is an indispensable element of violation of Section 5

(i) of R.A. No. 9262. Equally essential is the element of emotional anguish and

mental suffering, which are personal to the complainant. Psychological violence is

the means employed by the perpetrator, while emotional anguish or mental suffering

are the effects caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. The law does

not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due to the psychological

violence done by her abuser. Rather, the law only requires emotional anguish and

mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering,

jurisprudence only requires that the testimony of the victim to be presented in court,

as such experiences are personal to this party.

Conclusion:

The defense of denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive

and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the accused committed the

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 10

crime. Denial, being a self-serving negative defense, cannot be given greater weight

than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.

The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that Araza

committed the crime of psychological violence, through his acts of marital infidelity,

which caused mental or emotional suffering on the part of AAA. Petitioner Jaime

Araza is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5 (i) of

Republic Act No. 9262.

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 11

 DISCUSSIONS

A) Judicial Activism v. Judicial Restraint

Judicial Activism is the approach in judicial reviews where the decisions of

a judge lean towards a willingness to resolve a constitutional issue, brought

before him, in a manner that would invalidate or strike down an action of the

other branches of the government.1 Judicial Restraint is the approach that urges

judges to adhere to a more procedural doctrine wherein they would refrain from

passing upon a legal issue unless absolutely necessary to resolve a dispute.

In the activism approach, judges are more willing to overturn judicial

precedents and decide cases on the basis of their own personal and institutional

preferences over the strict application of the law. On the other hand, the restraint

approach, urges a judge to show substantial deference to the actions and decisions

of the legislature or the executive, wherein they only invalidate acts that are in

clear violation of constitutional limits. The two approaches are practically the

opposite of one another.2

1
Judicial Restraint by Kermit Roosevelt (https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-restraint)
2
Judicial Activism by Kermit Roosevelt (https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-activism)

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 12

B) How would you define the decision of the Supreme Court in the said cases?

In the case of People v. Sapla, the decision of the Supreme Court is one of

judicial activism. In the said approach, the decision of the court is one that

resolves a constitutional issue in a manner that would invalidate an action of

another branch of the government. In this case, the Court invalidated the search

and seizure done by the authorities, deeming it to be illegal for its mere reliance

on an anonymous tip from an anonymous source.

On the other hand, in the case of Araza v. People, the Supreme Court

approached it with judicial restraint. There is judicial restraint where the judges

adhere to a more procedural doctrine and show substantial deference to an action

of another government branch. The Court’s decision in Araza’s case showed the

judges deference to the legislative act enacted by Congress, which is the Anti-

Violence Against Women and Children Act or R.A. 9262. This is shown by the

tribunal’s adherence to the words and intent of the said by their constant reference

to its parts and the definitions provided in the sections of the VAWC.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court uses different approaches based on the

different circumstances, importance, and issues of each case. They approached

the case of People v. Sapla with judicial activism by deeming illegal the acts of

the apprehending police officers - in their search of the accused vehicles, wherein

they found dangerous drugs, but doing so on the sole basis and reliance on an

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 13

 anonymous tip. While the Supreme Court approached the case of Araza v. People

with judicial restraint in their deference to enactment of the legislature are basing

their decision on the words and intent of the Anti-Violence Against Women and

Children Act.

C) Where Does The Supreme Court Justices Belong On This Continuum?

As early as 1968, the Court, in the case of De la Cruz vs. De la Cruz (G.R.

No. L-19565), has adhered to the principle of judicial restraint. In 2013, the Court

again emphasized the Court’s adherence to judicial restraint. In Chavez vs. JBC

(G.R. No. 202242), the Court said that “no amount of practical logic or

convenience can convince the Court to perform either an excision or an insertion

that will change the manifest intent of the Framers” (of the Constitution). The

Court cannot likewise “craft and tailor constitutional provisions in order to

accommodate all of situations no matter how ideal or reasonable the proposed

solution may sound” (Chavez v. JBC, April 16, 2013, 709 PHIL 478-523). Hence,

the strict adherence to judicial restraint.

In both the Azara and Sapla cases, the Supreme Court justices are leaning

towards judicial restraint. C.J. Peralta, in Azara, discussed in detail the elements

of the offense charged in determining whether accused Azara was guilty. There

was no form of deviation from the law and jurisprudence when the RTC, CA, and

SC rendered their decisions. In the Sapla case, the Court cited a plethora of cases

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 14

 in justifying that the case does not fall under a valid warrantless search of a

moving vehicle. It cited both American and Philippine jurisprudence which

support its decision in this case. These cases clearly show that the principle of

judicial restraint is adhered to by the SC justices.

D) Do you think composition of the Supreme Court contributed to the

decisions?

Yes, the composition of the Supreme Court contributed to the decisions. As

the law and the surrounding culture change and develop, most opinions become

less relevant over time. Some Justices will choose to rely on jurisprudence, and

some will try to see the circumstance and apply the law in a different perspective.

This is the reason why more cases are having concurring and dissenting opinions.

For example, in the case of People v. Sapla, nine (9) Supreme Court Justices

concurred to the ruling of Justice Caguioa that the search conducted on accused-

appellant Jerry Sapla was unreasonable. In Justice Leonen's Concurring Opinion,

it was noticeable that he relied on previously decided cases to write such an

opinion.

On the other hand, three (3) Supreme Court Justices expressed their dissent

on the ruling of Justice Caguioa. Justice Lazaro-Javier's Dissenting Opinion relied

on her own analysis of the law provisions, and the general circumstances involved

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 15

 in the case such as the series of tips gathered by the police officers, the perception

of the police officers, the necessity to make on-the-spot judgment, etc.

Most jurisprudence becomes less relevant over time which was not the case

in People v. Sapla as evidenced by the final decision of the Supreme Court. The

measure of a justice's influence on the law falls within the boundaries of citation

analysis. The frequency with which a particular opinion has been cited generally

indicates how it has influenced the resolution of subsequent cases.

E) After reading the Sapla case, how do you distinguish the merits of the

majority opinion with the dissenting opinion?

The merits of the Majority’s opinion were anchored on jurisprudence both in

the Philippines and the United States. The concurring opinion discussed the

applicability as well as the exceptions in cases of warrantless searches. It went

beyond by debunking the dissent laid down by looking at the facts of the cases

upon which the dissent was based. There was strict adherence to the Constitution

as well as to the established jurisprudential doctrines.

As for the dissent, the justices attempted to stretch the application of the

established jurisprudence. Instead of relying on the letters of the law, the dissent

was backed by the liberal application or interpretation of the law. Justice Lazaro-

Javier tried to establish that the search was valid by explaining why the

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 16

circumstances surrounding the case do not fall under unlawful searches by

interpreting the essential elements making the search invalid in a more liberal or,

worse, different way than how the long list of cases have defined and extensively

discussed these elements. She likewise tried to make an exception to the well-

established right of the accused to be presumed innocent by adopting a judicial

activist perspective. She argues that the Court “cannot nonchalantly refuse to see

the totality of circumstances, and choose to close its eyes to the whole picture and

the common sense conclusions about human behavior.” She likewise said that she

does not believe that the Court should “undeservedly place a premium on the

quantity of past precedents that have applied a certain principle, especially when

a mechanical application of this principle would not only defeat the ends of justice

but also resurrect and worse perpetuate a ruling and rationale that others whose

interest in the right to privacy has been firm have long discarded.” She strongly

advocated to revisit previously established doctrines, abandon, or “at least carve

out exceptions or reconcile contradictory rulings when warranted.” Similarly,

Justice Lopez advocated for a more liberal approach to the case. He moved for the

liberalization of the rules on searches by arguing that the search conducted was

reasonable and said that “a reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed

formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.”

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 17

 We noticed that the majority opinion was based purely on the face of the law

and on previously decided cases while the dissenting opinion had an application

of personal analysis and influenced by the justices’ own insights. It is only proper

to base judicial decisions on what the law explicitly provides in order to avoid

having different interpretations by the judges and justices. Absent these express

provisions, the judges shall consult previously decided cases on the same issues.

Given the changing time and circumstances, interpretation of law has

become more challenging. Judicial activism opens a possibility in the judicial

system which may allow its judges and justices to consult their personal insights

on the new different issues that were not covered or addressed by the law. Laws

are not always meant to stay permanent as how they are now. Laws change as the

circumstances evolve overtime. The judicial system may move towards a different

interpretation as long as there is a proper justification for the stretching or

narrowing of laws and as may be deemed fit by the changing circumstances.

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 18

F) Given the present composition of the House of the Representatives and the

Senate of the Philippines, do you think legislating from the bench will be

beneficial to the country?

The current party and bloc composition of both the House and the Senate

suggests that the legislative branch of the government would more likely be

leaning towards the same political ideologies and principles being applied by the

executive branch for having most of its members belonging to the same party as

that of the President. This makes the lawmaking process in both chambers of the

legislative branch more predictable when it comes to political agenda and

prioritization in interest. When this happens Judicial Activism or legislating from

the bench would be beneficial for several reasons.

The most important of these is that it would serve as a system of checks and

balances to the other government branches. Allowing the judges to consult their

own personal or political reasoning as basis for their rulings would give way to

a more balanced judicial system unlike the legislative which is outnumbered by

the same party as that of the President which entails that the lawmaking body is

highly influenced by the executive. It is helpful to decide on cases based not only

on the law itself but also to have insights coming from judges and justices who

have unquestionable years of experience in studying and practicing the law. We

can expect that these opinions are deeply rooted to their principles of justice and

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 19

fairness throughout their years of practice. Although the country would benefit

from the liberation that judicial activism brings, it may also be easily abused if

not properly implemented.

Group 9 – 3F Legal Technique & Logic 20