PEOPLE vs. CHUA HO SAN [G.R. No.

128222 June 17, 1999]

FACTS OF THE CASE: In response to reports of rampant smuggling of

firearms and other contraband, Chief of Police Jim Lagasca Cid of
Bacnotan Police Station, La Union began patrolling the Bacnotan coastline
with his officers. While monitoring the coastal area of Barangay Bulala, he
intercepted a radio call at around 12:45 p.m. from Barangay Captain Juan
Almoite of Barangay Tammocalao requesting for police assistance
regarding an unfamiliar speedboat the latter had spotted. According to
Almoite, the vessel looked different from the boats ordinarily used by
fisherfolk of the area and was poised to dock at Tammocalao shores. Cid
and six of his men led by SPO1 Reynoso Badua, proceeded immediately
to Tammocalao beach and there conferred with Almoite. Cid then
observed that the speedboat ferried a lone male passenger, who was later
identified as Chua Ho San. When the speed boat landed, the male
passenger alighted, carrying a multicolored strawbag, and walked towards
the road. Upon seeing the police officers, the man changed direction.
Badua held Chuas right arm to prevent him from fleeing. They then
introduced themselves as police officers; however, Chua did not
understand what theyre saying. And by resorting of sign language, Cid
motioned with his hands for the man to open his bag. The man acceded to
the request. The said bag was found to contain several transparent
plastics containing yellowish crystalline substances, which was later
identified to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Chua was then
brought to Bacnotan Police Station, where he was provided with an
interpreter to inform him of his constitutional rights.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest, search and seizure

conducted by the Police Officers constitute a valid exemption from the
warrant requirement.

RULING: The Court held in the negative. The Court explains that the
Constitution bars State intrusions to a person's body, personal effects or
residence except if conducted by virtue of a valid of a valid search warrant
issued in accordance with the Rules. However, warrantless searches may
be permitted in the following cases, to wit: (1) search of moving vehicles,
(2) seizure in plain view, (3) customs searches, (4) waiver or consent
searches,
(5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search), and (6) search incidental to a
lawful arrest. It is required in cases of in flagrante delicto that the arresting
officer must have personal knowledge of such facts or circumstances
convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause. Probable cause
means a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man's belief that the
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. In the
case at bar, there are no facts on record reasonably suggestive or
demonstrative of CHUA's participation in on going criminal enterprise that
could have spurred police officers from conducting the obtrusive search.
CHUA was not identified as a drug courier by a police informer or agent.
The fact that the vessel that ferried him to shore bore no resemblance to
the fishing boats of the area did not automatically mark him as in the
process of perpetrating an offense. With these, the Court held that there
was no probable cause to justify a search incidental to a lawful arrest. The
Court likewise did not appreciate the contention of the Prosecution that
there was a waiver or consented search. If CHUA could not understand
what was orally articulated to him, how could he understand the police's
"sign language?" More importantly, it cannot logically be inferred from his
alleged cognizance of the "sign language" that he deliberately,
intelligently, and consciously waived his right against such an intrusive
search. Finally, being a forbidden fruit, the subject regulated substance
was held to be inadmissible in evidence. Hence, the accused was
acquitted as the evidence was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.