Sapla makes Supreme Court soar to heights

By Al S. Mendoza

 

IN January 2014, Jerry Sapla was arrested by the police in Tabuk City, Kalinga province.

His “crime?”

Accused of owning four bricks of marijuana.

Three years later, in January 2017, Sapla was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 25 of Tabuk.

The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC verdict on Sapla in April 2018.

Sapla’s bitter journey of injustice began when, as a jeepney passenger, he was arrested at a police checkpoint in Tabuk.

Sadly, Sapla’s arrest was based on a mere anonymous phone call.

The tipster told the government agents a man clad “in a certain attire” was to transport marijuana from Kalinga to Isabela province.

The marijuana was in a blue sack, the caller said.

The RTC ignored Sapla’s defense that he had no baggage when he boarded the jeepney in Tabuk on his way to Roxas, Isabela.

When the police found the sack of marijuana lumped among the baggage of passengers, they singled out Sapla from among three male passengers who were in fatigue pants.

In its milestone decision, the Supreme Court freed Sapla after taking cognizance of the fact that Sapla’s arrest was the result of “a warrantless search of a moving vehicle.”

The High Court said the police were limited to “routine inspection” of a vehicle and must have reasonable and probable cause before they could conduct an intrusive search without a warrant.

“Does the mere reception of a text message from an anonymous person suffice to create probable cause that enables the authorities to conduct an extensive and intrusive search without a search warrant?” asked Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the decision’s author.  “The answer is a resounding no.”

Caguioa added that a tip is considered “hearsay no matter how reliable it may be.”

Continuing, Caguioa said: “While the court recognizes the necessity of adopting a decisive stance against the scourge of illegal drugs, the eradication of illegal drugs in our society cannot be achieved by subverting the people’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Further, the decision stated:  “The Constitution does not allow the end to justify the means. Otherwise, in eradicating one societal disease, a deadlier and more sinister one is cultivated—the trampling of the people’s fundamental, inalienable rights.”

Siding with Caguioa’s decision were Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic Leonen, Alexander Gesmundo, Jose Reyes Jr., Ramon Hernando, Henri Inting, Rodil Zalameda, Edgardo delos Santos and Samuel Gaerlan.

Their decision came out in June this year, ending a six-year torment on Sapla.

A bit late, but for poor Sapla, better late than never.

In upholding what is both fair and right, the 11 justices chorused:  “When the Constitution is disregarded, the battle against illegal drugs becomes a self-defeating and self-destructive enterprise.  A battle waged against illegal drugs that tramples on the rights of the people is not a war on drugs; it is a war against the people.”

The dissenters, by the way, were Rosmari Carandang, Amy Lazaro-Javier and Mario Lopez.  Remember them.

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments