SUBJECT: IMPOUNDMENT OF VEHICLES INVOLVED IN A VEHICULAR ACCIDENT

(First of Two Series)

Usually, police officers or accident investigators are at a loss on how to deal with the
vehicles involved in an accident. So to avoid complaints from any of the parties, police
officers would impound all vehicles involved. They would use the LTO citation ticket and
write therein the violation as “involved in a vehicular accident.” However, close scrutiny
of RA 4136 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code shows that it does not include
any violation at all that bears the name “involved in a vehicular accident” so as to
authorize impoundment. The nearest violation under RA 4136 that may characterize the
incident that may authorize the police officers or accident investigators to impound the
vehicle is “reckless driving”. So, we assume that when police officers or traffic
investigators cite the drivers for being “involved in a vehicular accident”, they mean
“reckless driving”.

But do police officers have the authority to impound the vehicle “in the absence of a
deputized LTO agent”? This question will be answered by the case below.
SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

One of the buses of Superlines, while traveling north and approaching the Alabang
northbound exit lane, swerved and crashed into the radio room of Philippine National
Construction Company (PNCC).

The incident was initially investigated by PNCC, thereafter; it was turned over to the
Alabang Traffic Bureau for it to conduct its own investigation on the request of traffic
investigator Patrolman Cesar Lopera (Lopera), where the said bus was stored.
Subsequently, Superlines made several requests for PNCC to release the bus, but the
same was denied, despite petitioner’s undertaking to repair the damaged radio room of
PNCC. Superlines thus filed a complaint for recovery of personal property (replevin) with
damages against PNCC before the RTC, Quezon Province.

In PNCC’s Answer to the complaint, it claimed that it merely towed the bus to its
compound for safekeeping pursuant to an order from the police authorities; that it
cannot release the bus to Superlines in the absence of an order from the police
authorities.

The RTC dismissed Superlines’ complaint. Superlines appealed to the Court of Appeals
where it concluded that the case should have been brought against the police
authorities instead of PNCC because it was the police who impounded the vehicle.
Superlines appealed the decision of the CA before the Supreme Court. Hence, the case.
Held:
The Constitution grants the right against unreasonable seizures. Thus, Section 2, Article
III provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
The seizure and impounding of petitioner’s bus, on Lopera’s request, were
unquestionably violative of "the right to be let alone" by the authorities as guaranteed
by the Constitution.

As explained in Bagalihog v. Fernandez:

It is true that property held as evidence in a criminal case cannot be replevied. But the
rule applies only where the property is lawfully held, that is, seized in accordance with
the rule against warrantless searches and seizures or its accepted exceptions. Property
subject of litigation is not by that fact alone in custodia legis. As the Court said in
Tamisin v. Odejar, "A thing is in custodia legis when it is shown that it has been and is
subjected to the official custody of a judicial executive officer in pursuance of his
execution of a legal writ." Only when property is lawfully taken by virtue of legal
process is it considered in the custody of the law, and not otherwise.
Petitioner’s prayer for recovery of possession of the bus is, in light of the foregoing
discussion, thus in order.

As for Superline’s claim for damages, the Court finds that it cannot pass upon the same
without impleading Lopera and any other police officer responsible for ordering the
seizure and distraint of the bus.

To sum up, we conclude the following:

1. The police officers have authority to impound vehicles involved in a vehicular
accident or reckless imprudence cases as we call it, if they will use the provisions of RA
4136 (Traffic Code) that enumerates violations that call for impoundment, like reckless
driving. These vehicles must be turner-over to the LTO for custody or remain at the
police station under the concept of constructive custody.

2. The police officers do not have the authority to impound the vehicles for being
merely involved in an accident because according to the case enunciated above, same
vehicles cannot be considered as an object “used in the commission of the crime” to
warrant warrantless seizure [impoundment] under the law. However, it must be noted
that a police officer is authorized under the law to temporarily detain an object within a
reasonable period of time for purposes of investigation. But it must be turned-over to
the owner as soon as the investigation is finished.