CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST

Searches and seizures incident to lawful arrests are governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Thus:

“SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.”

In People v. Leangsiri, 322 Phil. 226 (1996), People v. Cubcubin, Jr. (413 Phil 249 (2001), and People v. Estella, the Supreme Court had the occasion to lay down the parameters of a valid warrantless search and seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest.

When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.

Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within the latter’s reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The phrase "within the area of his immediate control" means the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. xxxxxxx

In the case of Valeroso vs. Court of Appeals, Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest allegedly for kidnapping with ransom. At that time, Valeroso was sleeping inside the boarding house of his children. He was awakened by the arresting officers who were heavily armed. They pulled him out of the room, placed him beside the faucet outside the room, tied his hands, and then put him under the care of Disuanco. The other police officers remained inside the room and ransacked the locked cabinet where they found the subject firearm and ammunition. With such discovery, Valeroso was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.

From the foregoing narration of facts, we can readily conclude that the arresting officers served the warrant of arrest without any resistance from Valeroso. They placed him immediately under their control by pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him out of the room with his hands tied. To be sure, the cabinet which, according to Valeroso, was locked, could no longer be considered as an "area within his immediate control" because there was no way for him to take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used against him.

The arresting officers would have been justified in searching the person of Valeroso, as well as the tables or drawers in front of him, for any concealed weapon that might be used against the former. But under the circumstances obtaining, there was no comparable justification to search through all the desk drawers and cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas in that room itself.

It is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception (warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach. The exception, therefore, should not be strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose.

Evidently, since the search was made in the locked cabinet which cannot be said to have been within Valeroso’s immediate control, the search exceeded the bounds of what may be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest. 

Ergo, the search made was illegal, a violation of Valeroso’s right against unreasonable search and seizure. Consequently, the evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible in evidence against him. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court succinctly stated that because a warrantless search is in derogation of a constitutional right, peace officers who conduct it cannot invoke regularity in the performance of official functions (VALEROSO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009, Third Division, Nachura, J.).