MEMORANDUM OF FACT

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court of City of Manila is a petition herein filed by persons named Gloria and Hillary questioning the validity of the checkpoint carried out by the Manila Police in Barangay Malacañang on August 09, 2000 which led to the search and seizure of certain amount of marijuana. The said evidence acquired as a result of the search and seizure were also questioned with regard to their admissibility to the court and whether or not they should be returned to the petitioners.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In June of 2000, Philippine National Police (PNP) operatives that were stationed in Manila conducted a surveillance operation on suspected drug dealers in the area on the City of Manila. They learned and had personal knowledge from their asset that a certain woman from Sagada and her companion from Baguio City were transporting illegal drugs once a month in big bulks.

On August 8, 2000, at about 11 o’clock in the evening, Chief Inspector Charlie of the Manila Police, held a briefing in connection with a tip which the officers received that two drug pushers, riding in a tricycle, would be making a delivery that night. An hour later, the Police Alert Team and their operatives installed a checkpoint in Barangy Malacañang to apprehend the suspects. SPO 1 Alvin, PO 1 Simon and PO 1 Theodore were assigned to man the checkpoint.

Around 1 o’clock in the morning of the following day, SPO 1 Alvin and PO 1 Simon flagged down a passing tricycle. The vehicle with two female passengers who were later identified as Gloria and Hillary, had in front of them a black bag. Suspicious of the black bag and the uneasy behavior of Gloria when asked about its ownership and content, the officers invited them two individuals to the Malacañang Police Station. They brought with them the black bag.

Upon reaching the police station, the black bag was opened in the presence of the two women. Found inside were eight bricks of marijuana sealed in plastic bags and covered with newspaper. The women were charged with illegal possession of marijuana.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

QUESTION PRESENTED

There are three questions presented in this case. First is whether or not the warrantless search and seizure of petitioners Gloria and Hillary during the checkpoint of the tricycle was valid; Second is whether or not the evidence seized from the black bag, a certain amount of marijuana, is admissible in court; and third is whether or not the evidence should be returned to the petitioners.

ARGUMENT

The warrantless search of Gloria and Hillary and the subsequent seizure of the black bag where certain amount of marijuana was found, are valid. Not all warrantless searches and seizures are prohibited. The above case is one of the exemptions. The checkpoints installed were valid since there was a probable cause from the start established by the surveillance made by the Manila Police arising from the reliable tip. In Valmonte v. General de Villa, G.R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990, it was held the checkpoints are not illegal per se. Under exceptional circumstances, checkpoints ma be allowed and installed by the government. Routine inspections also do not constitute unreasonable searches if only few questions are asked. If the inspection becomes more thorough to the extent of becoming a search, then this can be done when there is deemed to be probable cause. The above case is an example of search of a moving vehicle which is one of the exemptions of warrantless search. It was also held in the

case of People v. Malmstedt, G.R. No. 91107, June 9, 1991 that search warrant will be unnecessary given the same circumstance.

The evidence is admissible in Court. A search of moving vehicle is allowed even without warrant provided there is probable cause. In the case at bar, probable cause has been proven by the surveillance conducted by the police. The subsequent search made was valid because there was a probable cause based on the suspicious black bag and uneasy behavior of Gloria when asked about its ownership and content. There is a valid warrantless search of a moving vehicle. Therefore, any evidence obtained from such search is admissible in Court. The search would have been invalid if there were no probable cause as in the case of Aniag vs. Comission on Elections, 237 SCRA 424 (1994).

The evidence seized should not be returned. It is provided for by the law that illegal items which violate the Anti - Drug Trafficking Act (RA 9165), should not be returned. The seizure or confiscation shall always be in favor of the government and shall be destroyed with the manner provided by the law. See Confiscation and Forfeiture, P.D. No. 1158, Sec 338, 1977.