CAN THE police undertake a warrantless search for illegal drugs based only on the narration of a “confidential informant?”
***
Policemen are reportedly required to effect a minimum number of arrests per week.
“Non-performance” would be sanctioned with unpleasant reassignments, discharge, or demotion.
Consequently, irregular or illegal arrests are being carried out in the name of “accomplishments.”
The result has been detrimental to the cause of individual liberties. The police have become unmindful of the damaging effects of longtime detentions. Our congested prisons have become inhuman cages of malnutrition and disease.
The prosecution does not recommend bail in many offenses defined under the drug law.
***
The police sometimes make arrests at checkpoints for moving vehicles.
In one case decided by the Supreme Court last year, the police set up a checkpoint after being informed that the occupants of a white van were transporting “shabu” for delivery to another town.
The police flagged down the van and asked the driver to roll down the windows. When the occupants of the van complied, one police officer said he saw a sachet containing white crystalline substance in the driver’s sun visor.
The police decided to make further search of the vehicle.
***
The police officer requested barangay officials to witness the search.
The police found another small sachet underneath the van’s dashboard cover, and two big sachets in the driver’s seat cover.
The driver and his companion were arrested, detained, and charged with illegal drug trade.
***
During trial the driver and his companion denied knowing the existence of prohibited drugs in their vehicle. They were merely being paid as personnel of the owner of the van.
The trial court nonetheless convicted them of violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act for transporting shabu.
The judge said that the police had reason to believe the tip made by the confidential informant, and that the prosecutor was able to show integrity in the custody of the illegal drugs.
Is the judge correct?
***
We must all bear in mind that whether we are rich or poor we all enjoy the same bundle of liberties under the Constitution.
Among those guarantees is the right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.
You may not be arrested without a warrant of arrest. Your house and effects like your car may not be searched by government unless it is allowed by a court of law through the issuance of a search warrant.
Search without a warrant may only be conducted under exceptional circumstances, such as when there is “probable cause” for the police to search a vehicle.
This means that there are circumstances that would lead them to believe that a crime has been committed and the object evidencing the crime is in the place to be searched.
***
This requirement is lacking when the police rely solely on the tip provided by the confidential informant. Probable cause does not exist because “a tip is mere hearsay no matter how reliable it may be.”
When the police rely exclusively on the information provided by an unnamed confidential informant, all subsequent actions, including the setting up of checkpoints and recovery of the illegal substances, will be nullified because the courts cannot consider the seized items as admissible evidence against the accused.
Evidence procured in violation of the Constitution is not admissible.
It would not matter that the police may have secured the attendance of barangay officials in the conduct of the warrantless search./PN
