Remedy on illegal search of vehicle

Galvante v. Hon. Casimiro et al (G.R. No. 162808, April 22, 2008)

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Petitioner's vehicle was search without his consent. He filed complaints before the Ombudsman. One of the criminal complaint he filed was warrantless search. 

Was the complaint proper?

No. The complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The conduct of a warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or any other special law. What the RPC punishes are only two forms of searches:

Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained. - In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceedingP1,000.00 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same.

Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality.

Petitioner did not allege any of the elements of the foregoing felonies in his Affidavit-Complaint; rather, he accused private respondents of conducting a search on his vehicle without being armed with a valid warrant. This situation, while lamentable, is not covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC.

The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search conducted on his vehicle is civil, (Silahis International Hotel, Inc. v. Soluta, G.R. No. 163087, February 20, 2006). under Article 32, in relation to Article 2219 (6) and (10) of the Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

x x x x

(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;

x x x x

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

and/or disciplinary and administrative, under Section 41 of Republic Act No. 6975.(Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990).

To avail of such remedies, petitioner may file a complaint for damages with the regular courts (Lui v. Matillano, G.R. No. 141176, May 27, 2004) or an administrative case with the PNP/DILG,(Cayago v. Lina, G.R. No. 149539, January 19, 2005) and not a criminal action with the Ombudsman.