PEOPLE VS ESCANO
Facts: Accused-appellants were convicted of violation of PD 1866
and violation of the COMELEC gun ban due to a checkpoint search conducted by
the police which search was subsequently questioned by herein petitioners.
Issue: WON the checkpoint search conducted valid?
Held:
This Court
has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public
order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed.47 For, admittedly, routine checkpoints
do intrude, to a certain extent, on motorists' right to "free passage
without interruption," but it cannot be denied that, as a rule, it
involves only a brief detention of travelers during which the vehicle's
occupants are required to answer a brief question or two. 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 fact, these routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even
less intrusive.
We see no need for checkpoints to be announced, as the accused
have invoked. Not only would it be impractical, it would also forewarn those
who intend to violate the ban. Even so, badges of legitimacy of checkpoints may
still be inferred from their fixed location and the regularized manner in which
they are operated.49
Usana and
Lopez also question the validity of the search. The trial court, in convicting
the three accused for violation of R.A. No. 6425, accepted as aboveboard the
search done by the Makati Police of the trunk of the car. Jurisprudence
recognizes six generally accepted exceptions to the warrant requirement: (1)
search incidental to an arrest; (2) search of moving vehicles; (3) evidence in
plain view; (4) customs searches; (5) consented warrantless search; and (6) stop-and-frisk situations.