The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not fall under custodial interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal arrest, by virtue of the nature of the questioning, the expectations of the motorist and the officer, and the length of time the procedure is conducted.
Facts: PO2 Alteza saw Rodel Luz driving a motorcycle without a helmet. He flagged down Luz and invited him to their sub-station located near the area. While issuing a citation ticket for violation of the municipal ordinance, Alteza noticed that Luz was uneasy and asked Luz to take out the contents of his jacket. It was revealed that Luz was in possession of prohibited drugs. Ruling that Luz was lawfully arrested for a traffic violation and had been subjected to a valid search, the RTC convicted Luz of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Was there a valid arrest to justify the subsequent search and seizure?
Facts: PO2 Alteza saw Rodel Luz driving a motorcycle without a helmet. He flagged down Luz and invited him to their sub-station located near the area. While issuing a citation ticket for violation of the municipal ordinance, Alteza noticed that Luz was uneasy and asked Luz to take out the contents of his jacket. It was revealed that Luz was in possession of prohibited drugs. Ruling that Luz was lawfully arrested for a traffic violation and had been subjected to a valid search, the RTC convicted Luz of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Was there a valid arrest to justify the subsequent search and seizure?
Held: There was no valid arrest of Luz for the following reasons:
1. He was not arrested when he was flagged down for committing a traffic violation. There was no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or take him into custody when he was invited to the sub-station. PO3 Alteza himself testified that the only reason they went to the police sub-station was that Luz had been flagged down almost in front of that place. Hence, it was only for the sake of convenience that they were waiting there. There was no intention to take Luz into custody (because under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the drivers license of the latter).
In Berkemer v. McCarty, the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court discussed at length whether the roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop should be considered custodial interrogation. The Court held that, such questioning does not fall under custodial interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal arrest, by virtue of the nature of the questioning, the expectations of the motorist and the officer, and the length of time the procedure is conducted. The U.S. Court thus ruled that, since the motorist therein was only subjected to modest questions while still at the scene of the traffic stop, he was not at that moment placed under custody (such that he should have been apprised of his Miranda rights), and neither can treatment of this sort be fairly characterized as the functional equivalent of a formal arrest. Similarly, neither can Luz be considered under arrest at the time that his traffic citation was being made.
2. It also appears that, according to City Ordinance No. 98-012, which was violated by Luz, the failure to wear a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle is penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest need not be issued if the information or charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine only. Corollary, neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense.
3. Even if one were to work under the assumption that petitioner was deemed arrested upon being flagged down for a traffic violation and while awaiting the issuance of his ticket, then the requirements for a valid arrest were not complied with.
This Court has held that at the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and must show that person the warrant of arrest, if any. Persons shall be informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement they might make could be used against them. It may also be noted that in this case, these constitutional requirements were complied with by the police officers only after petitioner had been arrested for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
There being no valid arrest, the warrantless search that resulted from it was likewise illegal. [Rodel Luz y Ong vs. People of the Philippines, G. R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012]
1. He was not arrested when he was flagged down for committing a traffic violation. There was no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or take him into custody when he was invited to the sub-station. PO3 Alteza himself testified that the only reason they went to the police sub-station was that Luz had been flagged down almost in front of that place. Hence, it was only for the sake of convenience that they were waiting there. There was no intention to take Luz into custody (because under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the drivers license of the latter).
In Berkemer v. McCarty, the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court discussed at length whether the roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop should be considered custodial interrogation. The Court held that, such questioning does not fall under custodial interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal arrest, by virtue of the nature of the questioning, the expectations of the motorist and the officer, and the length of time the procedure is conducted. The U.S. Court thus ruled that, since the motorist therein was only subjected to modest questions while still at the scene of the traffic stop, he was not at that moment placed under custody (such that he should have been apprised of his Miranda rights), and neither can treatment of this sort be fairly characterized as the functional equivalent of a formal arrest. Similarly, neither can Luz be considered under arrest at the time that his traffic citation was being made.
2. It also appears that, according to City Ordinance No. 98-012, which was violated by Luz, the failure to wear a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle is penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest need not be issued if the information or charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine only. Corollary, neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense.
3. Even if one were to work under the assumption that petitioner was deemed arrested upon being flagged down for a traffic violation and while awaiting the issuance of his ticket, then the requirements for a valid arrest were not complied with.
This Court has held that at the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and must show that person the warrant of arrest, if any. Persons shall be informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement they might make could be used against them. It may also be noted that in this case, these constitutional requirements were complied with by the police officers only after petitioner had been arrested for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
There being no valid arrest, the warrantless search that resulted from it was likewise illegal. [Rodel Luz y Ong vs. People of the Philippines, G. R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012]
