Dear PAO,

My brother was riding his motorcycle last night when he encountered a checkpoint at the corner of our street. He stopped as instructed, and the police officers asked for the certificate of registration and official receipt of the motorcycle. My brother, however, failed to produce them. Thereafter, the police officers asked my brother to open the tools compartment of his motorcycle to search for the abovementioned documents. Can the police officers legally ask my brother to open the tools compartment of his motorcycle even without a search warrant?

Daniel

Dear Daniel,

Based on Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, as a general rule, search and seizure must be carried out only by virtue of a search warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause. Otherwise, a search and seizure effected by law authorities without a valid warrant would be considered unreasonable within the meaning of the Constitution.

However, this constitutional provision is not absolute. There are exceptions which make a search valid even without a warrant. One of these exceptions is the search of a moving vehicle.

In the case of Rolando Uy v. People of the Philippines (GR 217097, Feb. 23, 2022), the Supreme Court, through Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, explained that checkpoints are considered a variant of searching moving vehicles. This kind of search is not considered as illegal per se for as long as its necessity is justified by the exigencies of public order, and it is conducted in a way that is least intrusive to motorists. In other words, a checkpoint search is considered valid as long as it is limited to a mere routine inspection.

The question now is, does the law allow an extensive search during a checkpoint search? The answer is yes. However, in order for extensive search to be valid during a checkpoint, the authorities should have a probable cause that would justify a reasonable belief that either the motorist is a law offender, or that the contents of the vehicle are, or have been, instruments of some offense.

In the aforementioned case, it was ruled by the Court that failure of the person to produce the OR/CR of his motorcycle could raise suspicions on the part of the police officer which would prompt them to inquire further and look into the motor vehicle, to wit:

“As may be gleaned from the records of this case, petitioner, who was driving a red motorcycle, passed by the mobile check point at Purok 4, Sitio Paso, Barangay Mabuhay, San Fernando, Bukidnon, where SPO2 Llorin was stationed. The motorcycle was then flagged down, and SPO2 Llorin asked petitioner for his OR/CR. However, he failed to produce the documents. The police authorities then became suspicious that the motorcycle might have been stolen considering petitioner’s failure to produce the OR/CR. Moreover, upon inspection of the motor vehicle, the police officers chanced upon a plastic cellophane protruding from the tools compartment. When petitioner opened the tools compartment, the police officers found a small bundle of dried marijuana placed inside a transparent cellophane. x x x

“Based on the foregoing, while it is true that the root of the encounter of the police officers and the petitioner was due to the mobile check point in implementation of the COMELEC gun ban, the arrest was not made by reason of the COMELEC gun ban or any traffic violation. Instead, it was in light of petitioner’s failure to present his OR/CR, which raised suspicions on the part of the police officers, prompting them to inquire further and look into the motor vehicle, on the theory that petitioner might be committing a crime or the motor vehicle itself is the subject of the crime already committed. The consequent search conducted by the police officers led to the confiscation of marijuana from petitioner.”

In your brother’s case, his failure to present the certificate of registration and the official receipt of his motorcycle may have raised reasonable suspicion on the part of the police officers. Consequently, they may be justified in asking him to open the tools compartment of his motorcycle, even without a search warrant, as such failure could indicate that a crime had been committed or that the motor vehicle was involved in a crime.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]