People vs. Escano, Usana and Lopez[GR 129756-58, 28 Janua ! 2"""# First Division, Davide Jr.

(CJ): 4 concur $ac%s& On 5 April 1995 and during a COMELEC gun ban, some law enforcers of the Makati olice, namel!, O" Eduardo # $uba, O" %ernabe &onato, $ O' (uan de los $antos,and )nspector Ernesto *uico, were manning a checkpoint at the corner of $enator *il u!at A+e# and the $outh Lu,on E-presswa! .$LE/0# 1he! were checking the cars goingto asa! Cit!, stopping those the! found suspicious, and imposing merel! a running stopon the others# At about past midnight, the! stopped a 2ia ride# 3" $uba saw a longfirearm on the lap of the person seated at the passenger seat, who was later identified as4irgilio 5sana# 1he! asked the dri+er, identified as (ulian 6# Esca7o, to open the door# 3" $uba sei,ed the long firearm, an M81 5$ Carbine, from 5sana# 9hen Esca7o, uponorder of the police, parked along $en# *il u!at A+e#, the other passengers were searchedfor more weapons#1heir search !ielded a #'5 caliber firearm which the! sei,ed from Esca7o# 1he three passengers were thereafter brought to the police station %lock 5 in the 2ia ride dri+en b! O" &onato# 5pon reaching the precinct, &onato turned o+er the ke! to the desk officer# $ince $ O' de los $antos was suspicious of the +ehicle, he re:uested Esca7o toopen the trunk# Esca7o readil! agreed and opened the trunk himself using his ke!# 1he!noticed a blue bag inside it, which the! asked Esca7o to open# 1he bag contained a parcelwrapped in tape, which, upon e-amination b! &ational %ureau of )n+estigation ;orensicChemist Emilia A# <osaldos, was found positi+e for hashish weighing "#"1'" kilograms#4irgilio 1# 5sana and (err! C# Lope,, together with (ulian 6# Esca7o, were charged before the <egional 1rial Court of Makati Cit!, %ranch ='#Esca7o and 5sana were alsocharged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition in +iolation of residential6ecree 1>==# 1he cases were consolidated and ?ointl! tried# )n its 6ecision of "3 Ma!199@, which was promulgated on 1@ (une 199@, the trial court con+icted Esca7o, Lope,,5sana and Esca7o# 'ssue& 9hether the search conducted on EscanoAs car is illegal, and whether the e+idenceac:uired therein would be sufficient to con+ict Lope, and 5sana for possession of illegaldrugs# (eld& 1he Court has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal# )*ose +*,c* a e+a an%ed -! %*e e.,/enc,es o0 pu-l,c o de and a e conduc%ed ,n a +a! leas%,n% us,ve %o 1o%o ,s%s a e allo+ed. ;or, admittedl!, routine checkpoints do intrude, to acertain e-tent, on motoristsA right to Bfree passage without interruption,C but it cannot bedenied that, as a rule, it in+ol+es onl! a brief detention of tra+elers during which the+ehicleAs occupants are re:uired to answer a brief :uestion or two# ;or as long as the+ehicle is neither searched nor its occupants sub?ected to a bod! search, and theinspection of the +ehicle is limited to a +isual search, said routine checks cannot beregarded as +iolati+e of an indi+idualAs right against unreasonable search# )n fact, theseroutine checks, when conducted in a fi-ed area, are e+en less intrusi+e# 1he checkpointherein conducted was in pursuance of the gun ban enforced b! the COMELEC#

1he COMELEC would be hard put to implement the ban if its deputi,ed agents were limitedto a +isual search of pedestrians# )t would also defeat the purpose for which such ban wasinstituted# 1hose who intend to bring a gun during said period would know that the! onl!need a car to be able to easil! perpetrate their malicious designs# 1he facts adduced donot constitute a ground for a +iolation of the constitutional rights of the accused againstillegal search and sei,ure# O" $uba admitted that the! were merel! stopping cars the!deemed suspicious, such as those whose windows are hea+il! tinted ?ust to see if the passengers thereof were carr!ing guns# At best the! would merel! direct their flashlightsinside the cars the! would stop, without opening the carAs doors or sub?ecting its passengers to a bod! search# 1here is nothing discriminator! in this as this is what thesituation demands# 6espite the +alidit! of the search, the Court cannot affirm thecon+iction of 5sana and Lope, for +iolation of <A ='D5, as amended# 1he followingfacts militate against a finding of con+ictionE .10 the car belonged to Esca7oF .D0 the trunk of the car was not opened soon after it was stopped and after the accused were searchedfor firearmsF ."0 the car was dri+en b! a policeman from the place where it was stoppeduntil the police stationF .'0 the carAs trunk was opened, with the permission of Esca7o,without the presence of 5sana and Lope,F and .50 after arri+al at the police station anduntil the opening of the carAs trunk, the car was in the possession and control of the policeauthorities# &o fact was adduced to link 5sana and Lope, to the hashish found in thetrunk of the car# 1heir ha+ing been with Esca7o in the latterAs car before the BfindingC of the hashish sometime after the lapse of an appreciable time and without their presenceleft much to be desired to implicate them to the offense of selling, distributing, or transporting the prohibited drug# )n fact, there was no showing that 5sana and Lope,knew of the presence of hashish in the trunk of the car or that the! saw the same before it was sei,ed#