FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238018. June 18, 2018.]
DANILO C. SURBAN, respondent,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 18, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238018 — Danilo C. Surban vs. People of the Philippines
After carefully reviewing the allegations, arguments, and issues in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for the following reasons: (1) the verification of the petition was based on "knowledge and belief and based on authentic records;" (2) the affidavit of service of the petition was notarized on March 26, 2018 prior to the actual date of posting of copies of the petition on the Court of Appeals (CA) and adverse party on March 27, 2018; (3) the petition lacked explanation as to why service of the petition to the CA and to the adverse party were not done personally; and (4) for failure of the petitioner to show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing its Decision dated September 29, 2016 and Resolution dated March 1, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 36655 to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. On the contrary, the CA's Decision and Resolution are in accord with the facts and applicable laws and jurisprudence. TAIaHE
Petitioner was charged with violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1144, in relation to Executive Order (E.O.) No. 522, for possessing ammonium nitrate without the necessary license or permit from the Philippine National Police (PNP).
The main issue in this case is whether the search and seizure of the three (3) sacks of ammonium nitrate found inside petitioner's vehicle during a checkpoint were valid. The petitioner claims that the search conducted on his vehicle was unreasonable since the same was extensive and not limited to a visual search. He contends that having been a product of an illegal search, the ammonium nitrate seized from his vehicle was inadmissible against him.
We disagree.
The CA correctly held that the search and seizure of the ammonium nitrate from petitioner's vehicle were valid since the police officers at the checkpoint had probable cause to believe that he was a law offender or that the contents of his vehicle contained objects which were instruments of some offense when he tried to avoid the checkpoint. It was petitioner who gave the police officers every reason to suspect that he was concealing something illegal when he sped away in an attempt to evade a checkpoint.
We have previously held in People v. Vinecarao1 that, although the general rule is that motorists as well as pedestrians passing through checkpoints may only be subjected to a routine inspection, vehicles may be stopped and extensively searched when there is probable cause which justifies a reasonable belief on the part of the law enforcers that either the motorist is a law offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been instruments of some offense.
Moreover, petitioner admitted that, when he was caught in possession of the ammonium nitrate, he did not have the necessary license or permit to possess the same.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the September 29, 2016 Decision and March 1, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36655. cDHAES
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 465 Phil. 192, 208 (2004).