Scribd
Upload
93 views8 pages

G.R. No. 906 40 - : March 29, 1994 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. BONIFACIO BARROS, Accused-Appellant

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant's constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated in this case. The police officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop and search the appellant and the carton box he was carrying. For a warrantless search of a vehicle to be valid, the officers must have reasonable cause to believe either that the motorist has committed a crime or that the vehicle contains illegal items. However, in this case, the officers did not have any facts to reasonably indicate the appellant had committed a crime prior to stopping and searching him.

Uploaded by

Ana Diel Kanlapan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as ODP, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
93 views8 pages

G.R. No. 906 40 - : March 29, 1994 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. BONIFACIO BARROS, Accused-Appellant

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant's constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated in this case. The police officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop and search the appellant and the carton box he was carrying. For a warrantless search of a vehicle to be valid, the officers must have reasonable cause to believe either that the motorist has committed a crime or that the vehicle contains illegal items. However, in this case, the officers did not have any facts to reasonably indicate the appellant had committed a crime prior to stopping and searching him.

Uploaded by

Ana Diel Kanlapan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as ODP, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

G.R. No.

90640 | March 29, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee

vs.

BONIFACIO BARROS, accused-appellant


Ponente: FELICIANO, J.
G.R. 90640 | People vs. Barros
Facts:
● On 6 September 1987, M/Sgt. Francis Yag-as and S/Sgt. James Ayan, both members
of the P.C. Mountain Province Command, rode the Dangwa Bus bearing Plate ABZ-
242 bound for Sabangan, Mountain Province. Upon reaching Chackchakan, Bontoc,
Mountain Province, the bus stopped and both M/Sgt. Yag-as and S/Sgt. Ayan, who
were seated at the back, saw Bonifacio Barros carrying a carton, board the bus and
seated himself on seat 18 after putting the carton under his seat. Thereafter, the bus
continued and upon reaching Sabangan, M/Sgt. Yag-as and S/Sgt. Ayan before they
alighted, it being their station, called C2C Fernando Bongyao to inspect the carton
under seat 18.
G.R. 90640 | People vs. Barros
Facts:
● After C2C Bongyao inspected the carton, he found out that it contained marijuana
and he asked the passengers who the owner of the carton was but nobody answered.
Thereafter, C2C Bongyao alighted with the carton and S/Sgt. Ayan and C2C
Bongyao invited Barros to the detachment for questioning as the latter was the
suspected owner of the carton containing marijuana. Upon entering the detachment
the carton was opened in the presence of Barros. When Barros denied ownership of
the carton of marijuana, the P.C. officers called for the bus conductor who
pinpointed to Barros as the owner of the carton of marijuana.
G.R. 90640 | People vs. Barros
Facts:
● Barros was charged with violating Section 4 of RA 6425, as amended (Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972). After trial, the trial court convicted Bonifacio Barros of violation
of Section 4 of RA 6425 as amended and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P20,000.00. Barros appealed.
G.R. 90640 | People vs. Barros
Issue:
● Whether appellant’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures had been violated.
G.R. 90640 | People vs. Barros
Ruling:
● YES. There existed no circumstance which might reasonably have excited the
suspicion of the two police officers riding in the same bus as appellant Barros. There
was nothing to show that appellant Barros was then in the process of “actually
committing” or “attempting to commit” a crime. There was nothing on the record that
could have reasonably led the police officers to believe that “an offense [had] in fact
just been committed” when appellant boarded the bus or when he was asked whether
he owned the box at the checkpoint. The police officers had no “personable knowledge
of facts indicating that appellant had committed it.” There was, in brief, no basis for a
valid warrantless arrest. Accordingly, the search and seizure of the carton box was
equally non-permissible and invalid.
G.R. 90640 | People vs. Barros
Ratio Decidendi:
● In carrying out warrantless searches of moving vehicles, however, peace
officers are limited to routine checks, that is, the vehicles are neither really
searched nor their occupants subjected to physical or body searches, the
examination of the vehicles being limited to visual inspection. When,
however, a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a
warrantless search would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers
conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe, before
the search, that either the motorist is a law offender or the contents or
cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or
the proceeds of some criminal offense.
G.R. 90640 | People vs. Barros
● The Court has in the past found probable cause to conduct without a judicial warrant an extensive
search of moving vehicles in situations where:
(1) there had emanated from a package the distinctive smell of marijuana;
(2) agents of the Narcotics Command ("Narcom") of the Philippine National Police ("PNP") had
received a confidential report from informers that a sizeable volume of marijuana would be
transported along the route where the search was conducted;
(3) Narcom agents were informed or "tipped off" by an undercover "deep penetration" agent that
prohibited drugs be brought into the country on a particular airline flight on a given date;
(4) Narcom agents had received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada, Mountain
Province, had in his possession prohibited drugs and when the Narcom agents confronted the
accused Caucasian, because of a conspicuous bulge in his waistline, he failed to present his passport
and other identification papers when requested to do so;
(5) Narcom agents had received confidential information that a woman having the same physical
appearance as that of the accused would be transporting marijuana. 17

You might also like