CABALLES V.

COURT OF APPEALS, 373 SCRA 221 [GR 136292, 15 JANUARY

2002]
Facts:
While on a routine patrol in Brgy Sampalucan, Pagsanjan, Laguna, Sgt. Victorino
Nocejo and Pat. Alex de Castro spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered with
kakawati leaves. Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods, the two
officers flagged down the vehicle. Being the driver of the jeep, Caballes was asked by
the officers as to what was loaded in the jeep, to which he did not respond, appearing
pale and nervous. The officers checked the cargo and discovered bundles of galvanized
conductor wires exclusively owned by National Power Corporation. Caballes and the
vehicle with the high-voltage wires were brought to the Pagsanjan Police Station, where
he was imprisoned for 7 days.
The trial court found Caballes guilty of the crime of Theft of property. Upon
appeal, the Court fo Aooeaksm affirmed the trial courts judgment of conviction.
Issue: WON the evidence taken from the warrantless search is admissible against
Caballes
Held: No; the evidence are not admissible in evidence.
Ratio: The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures is not
absolute, but admits of certain exceptions. The situation in the case at bar does not fall
under any of the accepted exceptions.
1. Search of a moving vehicle (ito yung sense ng case talaga)
The rules governing searches and seizures of moving vehicles have been liberalized for
the purposes of practicality. Obtaining a warrant for a moving vehicle is particularly
difficult for want of a specific description of the place, things, and persons to be
searches. Also, it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be
quickly moved out of the jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Still, however,
there must be probable cause to conduct such warrantless search.
One form of search of moving vehicles is the stop-and-search without warrant at
checkpoints, which has been declared as not illegal per se, for as long as it is warranted
by the exigencies of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists. A
checkpoint may either be a mere routine inspection or it may involve an extensive
search.
Routine inspections are not regarded as violative of an individuals right against
unreasonable search. The circumstances in this case, however, do not constitute a

routine inspection. They had to reach inside the vehicle, lift the leaves and look inside
the sacks before they were able to see the cable wires.
When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a search would
be constitutionally permissible only if the officers have probable cause to believe that
either the motorist is a law-offender or they will find the instrumentality or evidence
pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched. In this case, the officers flagged
down the jeep because they became suspicious when they saw that the back of the
vehicle was covered with kakawati leaves, which, to them, was unusual and uncommon.
The Court believes that the fact that the vehicle looked suspicious simply because it is
not common for such to be covered in kakawati leaves does not constitute probable
cause to justify a search without a warrant. In addition, there was no tip or confidential
information that could have backed up their search, as jurisprudence is replete with
cases where tipped information has become sufficient to constitute probable cause.
2. Plain view doctrine
It is clear from the records that the cable wires were not exposed to sight because they
were placed in sacks and covered with leaves. They had no clue as to what was
underneath the leaves. Object was not in plain view which could have justified mere
seizure without further search.
3. Consented search
At most, there was only implied acquiescence, a mere passive conformity, which is no
consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. Evidence is lacking that
Caballes intentionally surrendered his right against unreasonable searches.
Search of a moving vehicle
Two police officers were on routine patrol in Laguna when they noticed a passenger
jeepney unusually covered with kakawati leaves. Concerned that this jeepney could be
carrying smuggled goods, they flagged down the vehicle and noticed the driver was
pale and nervous. He did not answer when asked what was in the vehicle so the officers
checked the jeepney and discovered 700 kilograms of aluminum conductor wires owned
by National Power Corporation.
Both the trial court and Court of Appeals found the driver guilty of theft beyond
reasonable doubt despite the warrantless search. It cited the search of a moving vehicle
exception in valid warrantless searches as its basis. On appeal, the Supreme Court
(SC), found the exception to be inapplicable to the situation and the driver was
acquitted.

The SC first explained the necessity of the moving vehicle exception and the limitations
of this type of search
[t]he rules governing search and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized
whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality . . . A
warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that it is not practicable
to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Searches without warrant of
automobiles is also allowed for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or
immigration laws, provided such searches are made at borders or constructive borders
like checkpoints near the boundary lines of the State.
The mere mobility of these vehicles, however, does not give the police officers unlimited
discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if made within the interior
of the territory and in the absence of probable cause. Probable cause must still be
present to conduct the warrantless search.
The SC reiterated that military or police checkpoints are not illegal per se and is a valid
form of a search of moving vehicles as long as it is warranted by the exigencies of
public order and conducted in the least intrusive way. For a routine checkpoint
inspection, the Court gave the necessary parameters
The search is limited to the following instances: (1) where the officer merely draws aside
the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds; (2) simply
looks into a vehicle; (3) flashes a light therein without opening the cars doors; (4) where
the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search; (5) where the inspection
of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection; and (6) where the
routine check is conducted in a fixed area.
The police officers violated the limitations set by the Court on a valid search of a moving
vehicle. Instead of merely conducting a visual inspection, they reached inside the
vehicle, lifted the kakawati leaves and looked inside the sacks before they were able to
see the cable wires. The SC ruled that because the search was done in violation of the
rules on a valid search and seizure, the cable wires could not be used as evidence in
the trial.
Authorities may conduct an extensive search of a vehicle only if the officers conducting
the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe, before the search, that either
the motorist is a law-offender or they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining
to a crime in the vehicle to be searched such as when they receive confidential reports
from a reliable source or smell marijuana in the vehicle (Caballes v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 136292, 15 January 2002, J. Puno).