5. Esquillo v. People
He glanced in the direction where
G.R. No. 182010, 25 August 2010
Topic: Exception to the Search Warrant Requirement: Stop and frisk
Ponente: CARPIO-MORALES, J.| Author: GOJAR
Doctrine: Generally, a search can only be made if there is a valid search warrant. A
stop & frisk operation is an exception to this. What is essential is that a genuine
reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding
conditions, to warrant the belief that the person who manifests unusual suspicious
conduct has weapons or contraband concealed about him.
Dual purpose of a stop & frisk practice:
1. the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which
underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for
purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable
cause; (this applies in this case)
2. the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the
police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he
deals is not armed with deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally
be used against the police officer
Emergency Recit: 2 police officers were in a specific/targeted area to conduct
surveillance there. PO1 Cruz glanced in the direction where Esquilla was standing &
saw her placing a small transparent plastic sachet inside a cigarette box. He
approached Eqsquilla but he became suspicious when Esquillo started acting
strangely & when asked what she placed inside the cigar box, she attempted to
flee. She was arrested & the plastic sachet containing the shabu was seized.
Esquilla was convicted for violating RA9165 (possession of illegal drugs). She
appealed before the CA & alleged that she was illegally arrested (warrantless
arrest) so the shabu seized should be inadmissible. BUT the CA held that what
happened was a stop & frisk wherein no search warrant is needed. SC ruled it was
correct for CA to apply the stop & frisk principle. In such principle, what is
essential is that a genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person
who manifests unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband concealed
about him. IN THIS CASE, the police officers were on a surveillance operation as
part of their law enforcement efforts. When PO1 Cruz saw Esquillo placing a plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance into her cigarette case, it was in his
PLAIN VIEW. Given his training as a law enforcement officer, it was instinctive on
his part to be drawn to curiosity and to approach her. And when she reacted by
attempting to flee after the police officer introduced himself & inquired as to the
contents of the sachet, all the more pricked the police officer’s curiosity.
Facts:
 Based on the informant’s tip, 2 police officers (PO1 Cruzin & PO2 Aguas)
they proceeded to Bayanihan St. Malibay Pasay City to conduct a
surveillance on the activities of the alleged notorious snatcher operating in
the area/
 PO1 Cruz arrived at the targeted.
Esquilla was standing (3 meters away from him). He saw her placing inside
a yellow cigarette case in what appeared to be a small heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing white substance.
 Since PO1 Cruz wasn’t sure what that plastic contained, he became
SUSPICIOUS when Esquillo started acting strangely while he was
approaching her. He introduced himself as an officer & inquired what the
plastic contained but instead of answering, Esquillo attempted to flee to
her house nearby.
 PO1 Cruz was able to restrain her & asked her to take out the
TRANSPARENT plastic sachet from the cigarette case.
 PO1 Cruz apprised Esquillo of her consti rights. PO1 Cruz then confiscated
the plastic sachet.
 Hence, a case was filed against Esquillo for violation of Sec. 11 of RA 9165
(possession of shabu)
 Esquillo set up the defense of frame-up, she was inside her house coz she
was sick when the police officers just went inside her house asking her if
she knows that notorious snatcher in the area. When she answered she
didn’t know him, she was allegedly forced to go to the police station
where she was detained.
 RTC: Convicted her.
 Before the CA, she questioned her arrest, she alleged that this was made
without a warrant. And since there was an invalid warrantless arrest, she
alleged that the evidence obtained thereof should be inadmissible.
 CA: Affirmed RTC. Cited the case of People v Chua where it held that
police officers had probable cause to search petitioner under the „stop-
and-frisk‰ concept, a recognized exception to the general rule prohibiting
warrantless searches. As to the defense of frame-up, CA held that Esquillo
failed to adduce evidence that the arresting officers were impelled by any
evil motive to falsely charge her.
 Hence this appeal before the SC. Esquillo questioned the CA’s application
of the stop-and-frisk principle. She alleged that:
a. PO1 Cruz failed to justify his suspicion that a crime was being
committed because he only noticed her placing something inside a
cigarette case, which according to her, could hardly be deemed
suspicious.
b. The stop & frisk principle can only be invoked if there were overt acts
constituting unusual conduct that would arouse the suspicion.
ISSUE: Was the application by the CA of the stop & frisk principle proper? YES.
HELD:
GR: Search by law enforcers can only be made if there is a valid search warrant.
XPN:
(1) consented searches; (2) as an incident to a lawful arrest; (3) searches of vessels
and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws; (4) searches of
moving vehicles; (5) searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; (6)
where the prohibited articles are in “plain view”(7) searches of buildings and
premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and (8) “stop & frisk”
operations.
Where a warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or seizure, the
determination of what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is
purely a judicial question, taking into account, among other things, the uniqueness
of the circumstances involved including the purpose of the search or seizure, the
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure
was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.
SC cited People v Chua case, “„. . . the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband. The police officer should properly
introduce himself and make initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifests
unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latter’s outer clothing for possibly
concealed weapons. The apprehending police officer must have a genuine reason, in
accordance with the police officer’s experience and the surrounding conditions, to warrant
the belief that the person to be held has weapons (or contraband) concealed about him. It
should therefore be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for this
principle to apply.”
 Hence, what is essential is that a genuine reason must exist, in light of
the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant
the belief that the person who manifests unusual suspicious conduct has
weapons or contraband concealed about him.
Dual purpose of a stop & frisk practice:
1. the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which
underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for
purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable
cause; (this applies in this case)
2. the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the
police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he
deals is not armed with deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally
be used against the police officer
 HERE, Esquillo seeks exculpation by adopting 2 completely inconsistent or
incompatible lines of defense:
a. She argues that the stop-and-frisk search upon her person and personal
effects was unjustified as it constituted a warrantless search in violation of
the Constitution.
b. She also denies culpability by holding fast to her version that she was at
home resting on the date in question and had been forcibly dragged out of
the house by the police operatives and brought to the police station, for no
apparent reason than to try and extort money from her. And her 2
witnesses (her daughter & her friend) who were allegedly present when
she was arrested didn’t even report such incident.
 SC: Tend to look w/ disfavor on the defense of the accused that there was
a frame up (alibi). For this to prosper, the accused must clearly overcome
the presumption of regularity of official acts of government officials. Here,
she failed to do so.
As to the failure on the accused’s part to raise the issue of warrantless arrest:
Rule: Where the accused only raised the issue of warrantless arrest as well as the
inadmissibility of evidence acquired on the occasion thereof for the first time only
on appeal, she is deemed to have waived any objections on the legality of her
arrest
 HERE, Esquillo didn’t question early on her warrantless arrest before her
arraignment. She didn’t even take steps to quash the Information on such
ground. She only raised the legality of her arrest during appeal before the
CA. Hence, she is deemed to have waived any objections on the legality of
her arrest.

In this case, there was a valid stop & frisk operation. The circumstances under
which Esquillo was arrested engender the belief that a search on her was
warranted. Here, the police officers were on a surveillance operation as part of
their law enforcement efforts. When PO1 Cruz saw Esquillo placing a plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance into her cigarette case, it was in his PLAIN
VIEW.
 Given his training as a law enforcement officer, it was instinctive on his
part to be drawn to curiosity and to approach her. And when she reacted
by attempting to flee after the police officer introduced himself & inquired
as to the contents of the sachet, all the more pricked the police officer’s
curiosity.

As to the admission of Esquillo of the genuiness & due execution of the toxicology
reports:
 While those admissions do not necessarily control in determining the
validity of a warrantless search or seizure, but those admission provide a
reasonable gauge by which the accused’s credibility as a witness can be
measure or her defense tested.