Latest News

May a traffic violation justify a warrantless search and arrest?

The awesome powers of government in law enforcement is prone to abuse. To balance their power, check their abuses and protect the innocent, our Constitution gave the people several rights. The right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizure [Section 2, Article III, Constitution] is one of them.

To ensure that right, any evidence obtained in violation of that right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding [Section 3 (2), Article III, Constitution]. This means that any evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and thus excluded for being the proverbial ‘fruit of a poisonous tree.’ Illegally obtained evidence cannot be used.

On the other hand, to help law enforcers in their fight against crime, our law allows warrantless arrest but only in three instances: those caught in flagrante delicto or in the act of committing crime; caught based on probable cause that one just committed a crime and those who are fugitives from justice [Section 5, Rule 113, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure]. There are seven instances where warrantless search is valid: those incidental to a lawful arrest; in plain view; moving vehicles; consented; customs; stop and frisk andcexigent and emergency circumstances.


In anti-crime operations, the usual version used by law enforcers is the evidence [illegal drug or unlicensed gun] found during warrantless search after a lawful arrest belongs to the suspect. Incidents of planting evidence abounds that the government passed laws making it a heinous crime [Section 29, R.A. 9165 as amended for drugs and Section 38, R.A. 10591 for guns].

May law enforcer make warrantless search and arrest of one caught for traffic violation? Our Honorable Supreme Court decided an actual case in Ridon v. People, G.R. 252396 that was uploaded in its website on October 7, 2024. In this case, Ridon was driving a motorcycle when policemen ordered him to stop as he was passing a one-way street. Instead of stopping, he made a U-turn. They pursued and cornered him until he fell off his motorcycle. While being arrested, policemen drew and aimed their gun when he reached for something at his side. He was then frisked and an unlicensed revolver was found. He was charged. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in violation of R.A. 10591. It did not consider the defense of planted evidence since Ridon did not file such a case against the police. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction since Ridon was first caught in flagrante delicto violating a traffic law before the policemen made a search and found the gun. The CA ruled that warrantless search is valid as part of a lawful arrest. Ridon appealed and argued there was no valid arrest to justify warrantless search.

The Supreme Court ruled that the basis of police officers for pursuing Ridon was his violation of traffic rules for entering a one-way street. A traffic violation does not call for an arrest but only the confiscation of driver’s license. Regardless of his guilt in entering a one-way street, he was not under arrest when the police pursued him. A search without a warrant cannot be justified as a “stop-and-frisk” search, which is only allowed when policemen observe suspicious conduct. There must be two or more reasonable suspicious circumstances to justify that. The attempt to flee after being flagged for entering a one-way street did not indicate one was guilty of concealing a gun. Drawing something from his waist cannot also be a reasonable suspicious circumstance, as the police officers did not see any distinct bulge that would have led them to believe that what Ridon was about to draw was a gun.

Contrary to the CA’s findings, the warrantless search on Ridon was not incidental to a lawful arrest. Section 13, Rule 126, Rules of Court states that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything that may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. Indeed, there must first be a lawful arrest before a warrantless search and seizure can be made. The process cannot be reversed. Essentially, a lawful arrest must precede the warrantless search. A survey of jurisprudence will show that violating ordinance or regulations alone is insufficient to trigger a valid warrantless search and seizure, especially when the penalty does not involve imprisonment. The gun seized is inadmissible in court as it was the result of an illegal search. The CA and RTC rulings were reversed and Ridon was acquitted.


Tags: ATTY. FERDINAND MARK RONQUILLO, Atty. Miguel NV Llantino, Atty. Rolando Delfin

You May Also Like

Most Read