Title
Saluday vs. People
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 215305 Apr 3, 2018
Bus passenger's bag, searched at checkpoint, contained illegal firearms and
explosives; consent deemed valid, search reasonable, conviction upheld.
Jur.ph - Case Digest (G.R. No. 215305)
Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
1. The Incident at the Checkpoint: On May 5, 2009, Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle
was flagged down by Task Force Davao of the Philippine Army at a checkpoint near
Tefasco Wharf in Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco, a member of the Task
Force, requested all male passengers to disembark while female passengers
remained inside. SCAA Buco boarded the bus to inspect for contraband, illegal
firearms, explosives, or suspicious individuals.
2. Discovery of the Bag: During the inspection, SCAA Buco noticed a small, gray-black
pack bag on the rear seat of the bus. The bag felt unusually heavy for its size. SCAA
Buco observed that a male passenger in a white shirt (later identified as petitioner
Marcelo G. Saluday) kept peeping through the window towards the bag. When asked
who owned the bag, the bus conductor pointed to petitioner and his brother as the
ones seated at the back.
3. Search of the Bag: SCAA Buco requested petitioner to board the bus and open the
bag. Petitioner complied, and the bag was found to contain: (1) an improvised .30
caliber carbine with serial number 64702; (2) one magazine with three live
ammunitions; (3) one "cacao-type" hand grenade; and (4) a ten-inch hunting knife.
Petitioner could not produce any license or authority to possess the items, leading to
his immediate arrest.
4. Legal Proceedings: Petitioner was charged with illegal possession of a high-
powered firearm, ammunition, and explosive under Presidential Decree No. 1866 (PD
1866). He pleaded not guilty during arraignment. The prosecution presented
witnesses, including SCAA Buco and NUP Daniel Tabura, who testified that petitioner
was not a licensed firearm holder. The defense presented petitioner as the sole
witness, who denied ownership of the bag, claiming it belonged to his deceased
brother.
5. Trial Court Decision: The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal possession of a high-powered firearm, ammunition, and
explosive. He was sentenced to imprisonment and fined accordingly.
6. Court of Appeals Decision: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision
with modifications, imposing an indeterminate sentence for the firearm and
ammunition charge and reclusion perpetua for the explosive charge.
Issue:
(Unlock)
Ruling:
(Unlock)
Ratio:
1. Reasonableness of the Search:
The search was reasonable because it was conducted in a public
transportation setting, where passengers have a reduced expectation of
privacy. The search was minimally intrusive and aimed at ensuring public
safety.
The Court cited precedents such as People v. Johnson and Dela Cruz v.
People, which upheld the validity of routine inspections in public places like
airports, seaports, and bus terminals.
2. Consent to Search:
Petitioner's consent to the search was valid. When SCAA Buco asked if he
could open the bag, petitioner replied, "yes, just open it." This constituted a
clear and voluntary waiver of his right against warrantless searches.
The Court referenced People v. Omaweng, where similar consent was
deemed valid.
3. Finality of Factual Findings:
The Court reiterated that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, are binding and cannot be disturbed on appeal unless
there is a clear showing of error or misappreciation of evidence.
Petitioner's denial of ownership and shifting blame to his deceased brother
were deemed insufficient to overturn the lower courts' findings.
4. Guidelines for Bus Searches:
The Court laid down guidelines for conducting bus searches, emphasizing
that such searches must be the least intrusive, uphold the dignity of the
person being searched, and be free from discriminatory motives. The
purpose of the search must be confined to ensuring public safety.
