A simple violation of ordinances and regulations is not enough to justify a valid warrantless search and seizure, especially when the penalty does not involve imprisonment.

This was stated in a decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez dated 6 December 2023, in which the Supreme Court's Second Division acquitted Angelito Ridon of illegal possession of a firearm.

It was found during the litigation that the firearm seized from him is inadmissible because it was the result of an illegal search and seizure. Ridon was driving a motorcycle when police officers ordered him to stop because he was turning onto a one-way street but instead of stopping, Ridon made a U-turn.

The two police officers, Police Officer III Sherwin Clete Limbauan (PO3 Limbauan) and PO3 Harley Manguin Abuan, along with a Bantay Bayan pursued and cornered Ridon.

When Ridon fell off his motorcycle, he reached for something at his side, causing the Bantay Bayan to apprehend him while the police officers drew their firearms and aimed at Ridon.

He was frisked by PO3 Limbauan and recovered a revolver without a serial number, leading to his arrest.

Ridon was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition, with the prosecution arguing that he possessed a firearm without a license, in violation of Republic Act No. 10591, or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.

The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which ruled that the warrantless search on Ridon was valid as part of a lawful arrest after he sped away from the police officers.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the warrantless search on Ridon was invalid.

Searches and seizures without a warrant may be allowed if they are part of a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. However, a lawful arrest must first be conducted before a warrantless search and seizure can take place.

In this case, the police officers' basis for pursuing Ridon was his violation of traffic rules for entering a one-way street.

A traffic violation, however, does not call for an arrest but merely the confiscation of the driver’s license. Therefore, regardless of Ridon’s guilt in entering the one-way street, he was not under arrest when the police officers pursued him.

As there was no valid arrest, the warrantless search done on Ridon after was also not valid. The Court also ruled that the warrantless search can not be justified as a “stop-and-frisk” search, which is allowed when a police officer observes suspicious or unusual conduct. The Court said there must be two or more reasonable suspicious circumstances to justify a stop-and-frisk.