Illegal Search Warrant

7/26/2019 Illegal Search Warrant

1/82

G.R. No. 201363 March 18, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

NAZARENO VILLAREAL y LALHATI,Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N

PERLAS!"ERNA"E, J.:

This is an appeal from the a! "#, "$%% Decision%of the Court of Appeals &CA' in CA-(.).

C) No. *%*"$ +hich affirmed in toto the Decemer %%, "$$ Decision"

of the )eional Trial Court of Caloocan Cit!, /ranch %"* &)TC', convictin appellant

Na0areno 1illareal ! 2ualhati &appellant' of violation of Section %%, Article II of )epulic Act

No. 3%4#*

&)A 3%4#' and sentencin him to suffer the penalt! of imprisonment for t+elve&%"' !ears and one &%' da! to fourteen &%5' !ears and eiht &6' months and to pa! a fine

of P*$$,$$$.$$.

The 7actual Antecedents

On Decemer "#, "$$4 at around %%8*$ in the mornin, as PO* )enato de 2eon &PO* de

2eon' +as drivin his motorc!cle on his +a! home alon #th Avenue, he sa+ appellant from

a distance of aout 6 to %$ meters, holdin and scrutini0in in his hand a plastic sachet of

shau. Thus, PO* de 2eon, a memer of the Station Anti-Illeal Drus-Special Operation

9nit &SAID-SO9' in Caloocan Cit!, alihted from his motorc!cle and approached the

appellant +hom he reconi0ed as someone he had previousl! arrested for illeal dru

possession.5

9pon seein PO* de 2eon, appellant tried to escape ut +as :uic;l! apprehended +ith the

help of a tric!cle driver. Despite appellant)?2@N1 %"-"#-$4,> representin his and appellant


2/82

9pon :ualitative e=amination, the plastic sachet, +hich contained $.$* ram of +hite

cr!stalline sustance, tested positive for meth!lamphetamine h!drochloride, a danerous

dru.3

Conse:uentl!, appellant +as chared +ith violation of Section %%, Article II of )A 3%4# for

illeal possession of danerous drus in an Information%$+hich reads8

That on or aout the "#th da! of Decemer, "$$4 in Caloocan Cit!, etro anila and +ithin

the Burisdiction of this onorale Court, the aove-named accused, +ithout ein authori0ed

! la+, did then and there +illfull!, unla+full! and feloniousl! have in his possession,

custod! and control, ET2APETAINE D)OC2O)IDE &Shau' +eihin $.$*

ram +hich, +hen suBected to chemistr! e=amination ave positive result of

ET2APETAIE D)OC2O)IDE, a danerous dru.

CONT)A) TO 2A.

hen arrained, appellant, assisted ! counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not uilt! to the

offense chared.%%

In his defense, appellant denied PO* de 2eon


3/82

After trial on the merits, the )TC convicted appellant as chared upon a findin that all the

elements of the crime of illeal possession of danerous drus have een estalished, to

+it8 &%' the appellant is in possession of an item or oBect +hich is identified to e a

prohiited dru &"' that such possession is not authori0ed ! la+ and &*' that the accused

freel! and consciousl! possesses said dru. 7indin no ill motive on the part of PO* de

2eon to testif! falsel! aainst appellant, coupled +ith the fact that the former had previousl!arrested the latter for illeal possession of drus under )epulic Act No. 45"#%4&)A 45"#',

the )TC ave full faith and credit to PO* de 2eon


4/82

Section #, )ule %%* of the )evised )ules of Criminal Procedure la!s do+n the asic rules

on la+ful +arrantless arrests, either ! a peace officer or a private person, as follo+s8

Sec. #. Arrest +ithout +arrant +hen la+ful. F A peace officer or a private person ma!,

+ithout a +arrant, arrest a person8

&a' hen, in his presence, the person to e arrested has committed, is actuall!

committin, or is attemptin to commit an offense

&' hen an offense has Bust een committed and he has proale cause to elieve

ased on personal ;no+lede of facts or circumstances that the person to e

arrested has committed it and

&c' hen the person to e arrested is a prisoner +ho has escaped from a penal

estalishment or place +here he is servin final Budment or is temporaril! confined

+hile his case is pendin, or has escaped +hile ein transferred from oneconfinement to another.

= = =

7or the +arrantless arrest under pararaph &a' of Section # to operate, t+o elements must

concur8 &%' the person to e arrested must e=ecute an overt act indicatin that he has Bust

committed, is actuall! committin, or is attemptin to commit a crime and &"' such overt act

is done in the presence or +ithin the vie+ of the arrestin officer.%3On the other hand,

pararaph &' of Section # re:uires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an

offense had in fact Bust een committed and the arrestin officer had personal ;no+lede of

facts indicatin that the appellant had committed it."$

In oth instances, the officer under pararaphs &a' and &'

of Section #, )ule %%* of the )evised )ules on Criminal Procedure, as aove-:uoted.

The Court disarees.

A punctilious assessment of the factual ac;drop of this case sho+s that there could have

een no la+ful +arrantless arrest. A portion of PO* de 2eon


5/82

Avenue, +as there an!thin unusual that transpiredG

PO* DE 2EON8 es a


6/82

een sufficient in order for PO* de 2eon to effect a la+ful +arrantless arrest under

pararaph &a' of Section #, )ule %%*.

Neither has it een estalished that the riorous conditions set forth in pararaph &' of

Section #, )ule %%* have een complied +ith, i.e., that an offense had in fact Bust een

committed and the arrestin officer had personal ;no+lede of facts indicatin that theappellant had committed it.

The factual circumstances of the case failed to sho+ that PO* de 2eon had personal

;no+lede that a crime had een indisputal! committed ! the appellant. It is not enouh

that PO* de 2eon had reasonale round to elieve that appellant had Bust committed a

crime a crime must in fact have een committed first, +hich does not otain in this case.

ithout the overt act that +ould pin liailit! aainst appellant, it is therefore clear that PO*

de 2eon +as merel! impelled to apprehend appellant on account of the latter


7/82

this is un:uestional! not +hat >personal ;no+lede> under the la+ contemplates, +hich

must e strictl! construed."5

7urthermore, appellant


8/82

E)E7O)E, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-(.). C) No. *%*"$ is

)E1E)SED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Na0areno 1illareal ! 2ualhati is ACH9ITTED on

reasonale dout of the offense chared and ordered immediatel! released from detention,

unless his continued confinement is +arranted ! some other cause or round.

SO O)DE)ED.

ESTELA M. PERLAS!"

G.R. No. 8#0$% &'() 22, 1%%2

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

ROGELIO MENGOTE y TE&AS, accused-appellant.

*RZ, J.:

Accused-appellant )oelio enote +as convicted of illeal possession of firearms on the

strenth mainl! of the stolen pistol found on his person at the moment of his +arrantless

arrest. In this appeal, he pleads that the +eapon +as not admissile as evidence aainst

him ecause it had een illeall! sei0ed and +as therefore the fruit of the poisonous tree.

The (overnment disarees. It insists that the revolver +as validl! received in evidence !

the trial Bude ecause its sei0ure +as incidental to an arrest that +as doutless la+ful even

if admittedl! +ithout +arrant.

The incident occurred shortl! efore noon of Auust 6, %36, after the estern Police

District received a telephone call from an informer that there +ere three suspicious-loo;in

persons at the corner of Kuan 2una and North /a! /oulevard in Tondo, anila. A

surveillance team of plainclothesmen +as forth+ith dispatched to the place. As later

narrated at the trial ! Patrolmen )olando ercado and Alerto Kuan, 1the! there sa+ t+omen >loo;in from side to side,> one of +hom +as holdin his adomen. The! approached these persons

and identified themselves as policemen, +hereupon the t+o tried to run a+a! ut +ere unale to escape

ecause the other la+men had surrounded them. The suspects +ere then searched. One of them, +ho

turned out to e the accused-appellant, +as found +ith a .*6 calier Smith and esson revolver +ith si=

live ullets in the chamer. is companion, later identified as Nicanor orellos, had a fan ;nife secretedin his front riht pants poc;et. The +eapons +ere ta;en from them. enote and orellos +ere then

turned over to police head:uarters for investiation ! the Intellience Division.

On Auust %%, %36, the follo+in information +as filed aainst the accused-appellant

efore the )eional Trial Court of anila8


9/82

The undersined accuses )O(E2IO EN(OTE ! TEKAS of a violation of

Presidential Decree No. %644, committed as follo+s8

That on or aout Auust 6, %36, in the Cit! of anila, Philippines, the said

accused did then and there +ilfull!, unla+full! and ;no+inl! have in his

possession and under his custod! and control a firearm, to +it8

one &%' cal. *6 >S L > earin

Serial No. 6"$-T

+ithout first havin secured the necessar! license or permit therefor from the

proper authorities.

/esides the police officers, one other +itness presented ! the prosecution +as )ioerto

Dananan, +ho identified the suBect +eapon as amon the articles stolen from him durin

the roer! in his house in alaon on Kune %*, %36. e pointed to enote as one of theroers. e had dul! reported the roer! to the police, indicatin the articles stolen from

him, includin the revolver. 27or his part, enote made no effort to prove that he o+ned the firearmor that he +as licensed to possess it and claimed instead that the +eapon had een >Planted> on him at

the time of his arrest. 3

The un, toether +ith the live ullets and its holster, +ere offered as E=hiits A, /, and C

and admitted over the oBection of the defense. As previousl! stated, the +eapon +as the

principal evidence that led to enoteJs conviction for violation of P.D. %644. e +as

sentenced to reclusion

perpetua. +

It is sumitted in the AppellantJs /rief that the revolver should not have een admitted in

evidence ecause of its illeal sei0ure. no +arrant therefor havin een previousl! otained.

Neither could it have een sei0ed as an incident of a la+ful arrest ecause the arrest of

enote +as itself unla+ful, havin een also effected +ithout a +arrant. The defense also

contends that the testimon! reardin the alleed roer! in DanananJs house +as

irrelevant and should also have een disrearded ! the trial court.

The follo+in are the pertinent provision of the /ill of )ihts8

Sec. ". The riht of the people to e secure in their persons, houses, papers,and effects aainst unreasonale searches and sei0ures of +hatever nature

and for an! purpose shall e inviolale, and no search +arrant or +arrant of

arrest shall issue e=cept upon proale cause to e determined personall! !

the Bude after e=amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and

the +itnesses he ma! produce, and particularl! descriin the place to e

searched and the persons or thins to e sei0ed.


10/82

Sec. * &%'. The privac! of communication and correspondence shall e

inviolale e=cept upon la+ful order of the court, or +hen pulic safet! or order

re:uires other+ise as prescried ! la+.

&"' An! evidence otained in violation of this or the precedin section shall e

inadmissile for an! purpose in an! proceedin.

There is no :uestion that evidence otained as a result of an illeal search or sei0ure is

inadmissile in an! proceedin for an! purpose. That is the asolute prohiition of Article III,

Section *&"', of the Constitution. This is the celerated e=clusionar! rule ased on the

Bustification iven ! Kude 2earned and that >onl! in case the prosecution, +hich itself

controls the sei0in officials, ;no+s that it cannot profit ! their +ron +ill the +ron e

repressed.> The Solicitor (eneral, +hile concedin the rule, maintains that it is not

applicale in the case at ar. is reason is that the arrest and search of enote and the

sei0ure of the revolver from him +ere la+ful under )ule %%*, Section #, of the )ules of

Court readin as follo+s8

Sec. #.Arrest without warrant when lawful.M A peace officer or private

person ma!, +ithout a +arrant, arrest a person

&a' hen, in his presence, the person to e arrested has committed, is

actuall! committin, or is attemptin to commit an offense

&' hen an offense has in fact Bust een committed, and he has personal

;no+lede of facts indicatin that the person to e arrested has committed it

and

&c' hen the person to e arrested is a prisoner +ho has escaped from a

penal estalishment or place +here he is servin final Budment or

temporaril! confined +hile his case is pendin, or has escaped +hile ein

transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases failin under pararaphs &a' and &' hereof, the person arrested

+ithout a +arrant shall e forth+ith delivered to the nearest police station or

Bail, and he shall e proceeded aainst in accordance +ith )ule %%", Section

.

e have carefull! e=amined the +ordin of this )ule and cannot see ho+ +e can aree

+ith the prosecution.

Par. &c' of Section # is oviousl! inapplicale as enote +as not an escapee from a penal

institution +hen he +as arrested. e therefore confine ourselves to determinin the

la+fulness of his arrest under either Par. &a' or Par. &' of this section.


11/82

Par. &a' re:uires that the person e arrested &%' after he has committed or +hile he is

actuall! committin or is at least attemptin to commit an offense, &"' in the presence of the

arrestin officer.

These re:uirements have not een estalished in the case at ar. At the time of the arrest in

:uestion, the accused-appellant +as merel! >loo;in from side to side> and >holdin hisadomen,> accordin to the arrestin officers themselves. There +as apparentl! no offense

that had Bust een committed or +as ein actuall! committed or at least ein attempted

! enote in their presence.

The Solicitor (eneral sumits that the actual e=istence of an offense +as not necessar! as

lon as enoteJs acts >created a reasonale suspicion on the part of the arrestin officers

and induced in them the elief that an offense had een committed and that the accused-

appellant had committed it.> The :uestion is, hat offenseG hat offense could possil!

have een suested ! a person >loo;in from side to side> and >holdin his adomen>

and in a place not e=actl! forsa;enG

These are certainl! not sinister acts. And the settin of the arrest made them less so, if at

all. It miht have een different if enote ad een apprehended at an unodl! hour and

in a place +here he had no reason to e, li;e a dar;ened alle! at * oJcloc; in the mornin.

/ut he +as arrested at %%8*$ in the mornin and in a cro+ded street shortl! after alihtin

from a passener Beep +ith I his companion. e +as not s;ul;in in the shado+s ut

+al;in in the clear liht of da!. There +as nothin clandestine aout his ein on that

street at that us! hour in the la0e of the noonda! sun.

On the other hand, there could have een a numer of reasons, all of them innocent, +h!his e!es +ere dartin from side to side and e +as holdin his adomen. If the! e=cited

suspicion in the minds of the arrestin officers, as the prosecution suests, it has

nevertheless not een sho+n +hat their suspicion +as all aout. In fact, the policemen

themselves testified that the! +ere dispatched to that place onl! ecause of the telephone

call from the informer that there +ere >suspicious-loo;in> persons in that vicinit! +ho +ere

aout to commit a roer! at North /a! /oulevard. The caller did not e=plain +h! he

thouht the men loo;ed suspicious nor did he elaorate on the impendin crime.

In the recent case of People v. Malmstedt,$the Court sustained the +arrantless arrest of the

accused ecause there +as a ule in his +aist that e=cited the suspicion of the arrestin officer and,

upon inspection, turned out to e a pouch containin hashish. In People v. Claudio, 6the accused

oarded a us and placed the uri a she +as carr!in ehind the seat of the arrestin officer +hile she

herself sat in the seat efore him. is suspicion aroused, e surreptitiousl! e=amined the a, +hich he

found to contain mariBuana. e then and there made the +arrantless arrest and sei0ure that +e

suse:uentl! upheld on the round that proale cause had een sufficientl! estalished.

The case efore us is different ecause there +as nothin to support the arrestin officersJ

suspicion other than enoteJs dartin e!es and his hand on his adomen. /! no stretch of


12/82

the imaination could it have een inferred from these acts that an offense had Bust een

committed, or +as actuall! ein committed, or +as at least ein attempted in their

presence.

This case is similar to People v. Aminnudin, #+here the Court held that the +arrantless arrest of

the accused +as unconstitutional. This +as effected +hile e +as comin do+n a vessel, to allappearances no less innocent than the other disemar;in passeners. e had not committed nor +as

e actuall! committin or attemptin to commit an offense in the presence of the arrestin officers. e

+as not even actin suspiciousl!. In short, there +as no proale cause that, as the prosecution

incorrectl! suested, dispensed +ith the constitutional re:uirement of a +arrant.

Par. &' is no less applicale ecause its no less strinent re:uirements have also not een

satisfied. The prosecution has not sho+n that at the time of enoteJs arrest an offense had

in fact Bust een committed and that the arrestin officers hadpersonal knowledgeof facts

indicatin that enote had committed it. All the! had +as hearsa! information from the

telephone caller, and aout a crime that had !et to e committed.

The truth is that the! did not ;no+ then +hat offense, if at all, had een committed and

neither +ere the! a+are of the participation therein of the accused-appellant. It +as onl!

later, after Dananan had appeared at the Police head:uarters, that the! learned of the

roer! in his house and of enoteJs supposed involvement therein. 8As for the illeal possession ofthe firearm found on enoteJs person, the policemen discovered this onl! afterhe had een searched and the investiation conducted later

revealed that he +as not its o+ners nor +as he licensed to possess it.

/efore these events, the Peace officers had no ;no+lede even of enoteJ identit!, let

alone the fact &or suspicion' that he +as unla+full! carr!in a firearm or that he +as

involved in the roer! of DanananJs house.

In the landmar; case of People v. Burgos, %this Court declared8

9nder Section 4&a' of )ule %%*, the officer arrestin a person +ho has Bust

committed, is committin, or is aout to commit an offense must

havepersonal knowledge of the fact. The offense must also e committed in

his presence or within his view.&Sa!o v. Chief of Police, 6$ Phil. 6#3'.

&Emphasis supplied'

=== === ===

In arrests +ithout a +arrant under Section 4&', ho+ever, it is not enouh that

there is reasonale round to elieve that the person to e arrested has

committed a crime.A crime must in fact or actuall! have een committed first.

That a crime has actuall! een committed is an essential precondition. "t is

not enough to suspect that a crime ma! have een committed. The fact of the


13/82

commission of the offense must e undisputed.The test of reasonale

round applies onl! to the identit! of the perpetrator. &Emphasis supplied'

This doctrine +as affirmed inAlih v. Castro, 10thus8

If the arrest +as made under )ule %%*, Section #, of the )ules of Court inconnection +ith a crime aout to e committed, ein committed, or Bust

committed, +hat +as that crimeG There is no alleation in the record of such

a falsification. Parentheticall!, it ma! e oserved that under the )evised

)ule %%*, Section #&', the officer making the arrest must have personal

knowledge of the ground therefor as stressed in the recent case of People v.

Burgos. &Emphasis supplied'

It +ould e a sad da!, indeed, if an! person could e summaril! arrested and searched Bust

ecause he is holdin his adomen, even if it e possil! ecause of a stomach-ache, or if

a peace officer could clamp handcuffs on an! person +ith a shift! loo; on suspicion that hema! have committed a criminal act or is actuall! committin or attemptin it. This simpl!

cannot e done in a free societ!. This is not a police state +here order is e=alted over liert!

or, +orse, personal malice on the part of the arrestin officer ma! e Bustified in the name of

securit!.

There is no need to discuss the other issues raised ! the accused-appellant as the rulin

+e here ma;e is sufficient to sustain his e=oneration. ithout the evidence of the firearm

ta;en from him at the time of his illeal arrest, the prosecution has lost its most important

e=hiit and must therefore fail. The testimonial evidence aainst enote &+hich is ased

on the said firearm' is not sufficient to prove his uilt e!ond reasonale dout of the crimeimputed to him.

e commend Att!. 1ioleta Calvo-Drilon for her ale and spirited defense of the accused-

appellant not onl! in the rief ut also in the repl! rief, +hich she did not have to file ut did

so Bust the same to stress the constitutional rihts of her client. The fact that she +as actin

onl! as a counsel de oficio+ith no e=pectation of material re+ard ma;es her representation

even more commendale.

The Court feels that if the peace officers had een more mindful of the provisions of the /ill

of )ihts, the prosecution of the accused-appellant miht have succeeded. As it happened,

the! allo+ed their over-0ealousness to et the etter of them, resultin in their disreard of

the re:uirements of a valid search and sei0ure that rendered inadmissile the vital evidence

the! had invalidl! sei0ed.

This should e a lesson to other peace officers. Their impulsiveness ma! e the ver! cause

of the ac:uittal of persons +ho deserve to e convicted, escapin the clutches of the la+


14/82

ecause, ironicall! enouh, it has not een oserved ! those +ho are supposed to enforce

it.

E)E7O)E, the appealed decision is )E1E)SED and SET ASIDE. The accused-

appellant is ACH9ITTED and ordered released immediatel! unless he is validl! detained for

other offenses. No costs.

SO O)DE)ED.

G.R. No. 1823+8 No)-)r 20, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee

vs.

*ARLOS /ELA *RZ,accused-appellant.

/ E * I S I O N

VELAS*O, &R., J.

This is an appeal from the Novemer "3, "$$ Decision of the Court of

Appeals &CA' in CA-(.). C)-.C. No. $""64 entitled People of the

Philippines v. Carlos #ela Cru$+hich affirmed the Septemer %4, "$$#

Decision of the )eional Trial Court &)TC', /ranch in San ateo, )i0al in

Criminal Case Nos. 4#% &Illeal Possession of 7irearm and Ammunition' and

4#%6 &Possession of Danerous Dru'. The )TC found accused- appellant

Carlos Dela Cru0 uilt! e!ond reasonale dout of violation of Section %%&"'

of )epulic Act No. &)A' 3%4# or The Comprehensive #angerous #rugs Act

of %&&%.

Th) Fac

On Novemer %#, "$$", chares aainst accused-appellant +ere made

efore the )TC. The Informations read as follo+s8

*r-(a4 *a) No. 6$1#

That, on or aout the "$thda! of Octoer "$$", in the unicipalit! of

San ateo, Province of )i0al, Philippines and +ithin the Burisdiction of

this onorale Court, the aove-named accused, ein then a private


15/82

citi0en, +ithout an! la+ful authorit!, did then and there +illfull!,

unla+full!, and ;no+inl! have in his possession and under his custod!

and control One &%' (aue Shotun mar;ed A)SCO) +ith Serial No.

%%$6#** loaded +ith four &5' live ammunition, +hich are hih po+ered

firearm and ammunition respectivel!, +ithout first securin thenecessar! license to possess or permit to carr! said firearm and

ammunition from the proper authorities.

*r-(a4 *a) No. 6$18

That on or aout the "$thda! of Octoer "$$", in the unicipalit! of San

ateo, Province of )i0al, Philippines and +ithin the Burisdiction of this

onorale Court, the aove-named accused, not ein authori0ed !

la+, did then and there +illfull!, unla+full! and ;no+inl! have in hispossession, direct custod! and control one &%' heat-sealed transparent

plastic a +eihin 53.65 rams of +hite cr!stalline sustance, +hich

ave positive results for ethamphetamine !drochloride, a danerous

dru.%

Accused-appellant entered a not uilt! plea and trial ensued.

The facts, accordin to the prosecution, sho+ed that in the mornin of

Octoer "$, "$$", an informant tipped off the Dru Enforcement 9nit of theari;ina Police Station that +anted dru pusher ifredo 2oilo alias >/o!

/icol> +as at his nipa hut hideout in San ateo, )i0al. A team +as orani0ed

to arrest /o! /icol. Once there, the! sa+ /o! /icol ! a tale tal;in +ith

accused-appellant. The! shouted >Bo! Bicol sumuko ka na ma! warrant of

arrest ka. &Surrender !ourself /o! /icol !ou have a +arrant of arrest.'> 9pon

hearin this, /o! /icol enaed them in a shootout and +as fatall! shot.

Accused-appellant +as seen holdin a shotun throuh a +indo+. e

dropped his shotun +hen a police officer pointed his firearm at him. The

team entered the nipa hut and apprehended accused-appellant. The! sa+ a

plastic a of suspected shau, a diital +eihin scale, dru paraphernalia,

ammunition, and maa0ines l!in on the tale. PO% Calanoa, Kr. put the

mar;ins >C1DC,> the initials of accused-appellant, on the a containin the

sei0ed dru.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt1


16/82

Accused-appellant +as suse:uentl! arrested. The sustance sei0ed from the

hideout +as sent to the Philippine National Police crime laorator! for

e=amination and tested positive for methamphetamine h!drochloride

or shau. e +as thus separatel! indicted for violation of )A 3%4# and for

illeal possession of firearm.

Accordin to the defense, accused-appellant +as at /o! /icolJs house havin

een as;ed to do a +eldin Bo for /o! /icolJs motorc!cle. hile accused-

appellant +as there, persons +ho identified themselves as police officers

approached the place, promptin accused-appellant to scamper a+a!. e lied

face do+n +hen unshots ran. The u!-ust team then helped him et up.

e sa+ the police officers searchin the premises and findin shauand

firearms, +hich +ere on top of a tale or dra+er."hen he as;ed the reason

for his apprehension, he +as told that it +as ecause he +as a companion of/o! /icol. e denied under oath that the un and drus sei0ed +ere found in

his possession and testified that he +as onl! invited ! /o! /icol to et the

motorc!cle from his house.*

The )TC ac:uitted accused-appellant of illeal possession of firearm and

ammunition ut convicted him of possession of danerous drus. The

dispositive portion of the )TC Decision reads8

E)E7O)E, the Court ased on insufficienc! of evidence here!ACH9ITS accused CA)2OS DE2A C)9? 1ICTO)INO in Criminal

Case No. 4#% for violation of P.D. %644 as amended ! )A 6"35.

In Criminal Case No. 4#%6 for Possession of Danerous Dru under

Section %%, "ndpararaph of )epulic Act 3%4#, the Court finds said

accused CA)2OS DE2A C)9? 1ICTO)INO, (9I2T e!ond

reasonale dout and is here! sentenced to 2ife Imprisonment and to

Pa! a 7ine of 7O9) 9ND)ED TO9SAND PESOS &P5$$,$$$.$$'.

SO O)DE)ED.5

On Decemer , "$$#, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of the )TC

Decision.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt4


17/82

In his appeal to the CA, accused-appellant claimed that8 &%' the version of the

prosecution should not have een iven full credence &"' the prosecution

failed to prove e!ond reasonale dout that he +as uilt! of possession of

an illeal dru &*' his arrest +as patentl! illeal and &5' the prosecution failed

to estalish the chain of custod! of the illeal dru alleedl! in his possession.

The CA sustained accused-appellantJs conviction.#It pointed out that accused-

appellant +as positivel! identified ! prosecution +itnesses, renderin his

uncorroorated denial and alleation of frame-up +ea;. As to accused-

appellantJs alleed illeal arrest, the CA held that he is deemed to have

+aived his oBection +hen he entered his plea, applied for ail, and activel!

participated in the trial +ithout :uestionin such arrest.

On the supposedl! ro;en chain of custod! of the illeal dru, the appellatecourt held that accused-appellantJs claim is unpersuasive asent an!

evidence sho+in that the plastic sachet of shauhad een tampered or

meddled +ith.

On Decemer "$, "$$, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal of the

CA Decision.

On Kune "#, "$$6, this Court re:uired the parties to sumit supplemental

riefs if the! so desired. The parties later sinified their +illinness to sumitthe case on the asis of the records alread! +ith the Court.

Accused-appellant presents the follo+in issues efore us8

I

TE CO9)T A H9O ()A1E2 E))ED IN (I1IN( 7922 C)EDENCE

TO TE 1E)SION O7 TE P)OSEC9TION

II

TE CO9)T A H9O ()A1E2 E))ED IN 7INDIN( TE ACC9SED-

APPE22ANT (9I2T O7 1IO2ATION O7 SECTION %%, A)TIC2E II, )A

3%4# DESPITE TE 7AI29)E O7 TE P)OSEC9TION TO P)O1E
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt5


18/82

TE COISSION O7 TE O77ENSE CA)(ED /EOND

)EASONA/2E DO9/T

III

TE CO9)T A H9O ()A1E2 E))ED IN CON1ICTIN( TE

ACC9SED-APPE22ANT O7 TE O77ENSE CA)(ED DESPITE

TE PATENT I22E(A2IT O7 IS A))EST

I1

TE T)IA2 CO9)T ()A1E2 E))ED IN CON1ICTIN( TE

ACC9SED-APPE22ANT O7 1IO2ATION O7 SECTION %%, A)TIC2E II,

)A 3%4# DESPITE TE 7AI29)E O7 TE P)OSEC9TION TO

ESTA/2IS TE CAIN O7 C9STOD O7 TE I22E(A2 D)9(

A22E(ED2 7O9ND IN IS POSSESSION

Accused-appellant claims that the presence of all the elements of the offense

of possession of danerous dru +as not proved e!ond reasonale dout

since oth actual and constructive possessions +ere not proved. e asserts

that the shau+as not found in his actual possession, for +hich reason the

prosecution +as re:uired to estalish that he had constructive possession

over theshau. e maintains that as he had no control and dominion over thedru or over the place +here it +as found, the prosecution li;e+ise failed to

prove constructive possession.

Th) *o'r5 R'4(

The appeal has merit.

The elements in illeal possession of danerous dru are8 &%' the accused is

in possession of an item or oBect +hich is identified to e a prohiited dru

&"' such possession is not authori0ed ! la+ and &*' the accused freel! and

consciousl! possessed the said dru.4On the third element, +e have held that

the possession must e +ith ;no+lede of the accused or that animus

possidendie=isted +ith the possession or control of said articles.Considerin

that as to this ;no+lede, a personJs mental state of a+areness of a fact is

involved, +e have ruled that8
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt7


19/82

Since courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter

state its perceptions +ith certaint!, resort to other evidence is

necessar!.Animus possidendi, as a state of mind, ma! e determined

on a case-to-case asis ! ta;in into consideration the prior or

contemporaneous acts of the accused, as +ell as the surroundincircumstances. Its e=istence ma! and usuall! must e inferred from the

attendant events in each particular case.6

The prior or contemporaneous acts of accused-appellant sho+ that8 he +as

inside the nipa hut at the time the u!-ust operation +as ta;in place he

+as tal;in to /o! /icol inside the nipa hut he +as seen holdin a shotun

+hen PO% Calanoa, Kr. pointed his firearm at accused-appellant, the latter

dropped his shotun and +hen apprehended, he +as in a room +hich had

the sei0ed shau, diital +eihin scale, dru paraphernalia, ammunition, andmaa0ines. Accused-appellant later admitted that he ;ne+ +hat the content of

the sei0ed plastic a +as.3

(iven the circumstances, +e find that the prosecution failed to estalish

possession of the shau, +hether in its actual or constructive sense, on the

part of accused-appellant.

The t+o u!-ust team memers corroorated each otherJs testimonies on

ho+ the! sa+ /o! /icol tal;in to accused-appellant ! a tale inside the nipahut. That tale, the! testified, +as the same tale +here the! sa+

the shauonce inside the nipa hut. This fact +as used ! the prosecution to

sho+ that accused-appellant e=ercised dominion and control over

the shauon the tale. e, ho+ever, find this too road an application of the

concept of constructive possession.

In People v. Torres,%$+e held there +as constructive possession of prohiited

drus even +hen the accused +as not home +hen the prohiited drus +ere

found in the masterJs edroom of his house.

In People v. Tira,%%+e sustained the conviction of the accused husand and

+ife for illeal possession of danerous drus. Their residence +as searched

and their ed +as found to e concealin illeal drus underneath. e held
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt11


20/82

that the +ife cannot fein inorance of the drusJ e=istence as she had full

access to the room, includin the space under the ed.

InAuan v. People,%"+e affirmed the findin that the accused +as in

constructive possession of prohiited drus +hich had een found in thedra+er located in her edroom.

In all these cases, the accused +as held to e in constructive possession of

illeal drus since the! +ere sho+n to enBo! dominion and control over the

premises +here these drus +ere found.

In the instant case, ho+ever, there is no :uestion that accused-appellant +as

not the o+ner of the nipa hut that +as suBect of the u!-ust operation. e

did not have dominion or control over the nipa hut. Neither +as accused-appellant a tenant or occupant of the nipa hut, a fact not disputed ! the

prosecution. The taret of the operation +as /o! /icol. Accused-appellant

+as merel! a uest of /o! /icol. /ut in spite of the lac; of evidence pinnin

accused-appellant to illeal possession of drus, the trial court declared the

follo+in8

It cannot e denied that +hen the accused +as tal;in +ith /o! /icol he

;ne+ that the shau+as on the tale +ith other items that +ere

confiscated ! the police operatives. The court surmises that theaccused and o! /icol +ere memers of a an hidin in that nipa hut

+here the! +ere cauht red-handed +ith prohiited items and

danerous drus.%*

The trial court cannot assume, ased on the prosecutionJs evidence, that

accused-appellant +as part of a an dealin in illeal activities. Apart from

his presence in /o! /icolJs nipa hut, the prosecution +as not ale to sho+ his

participation in an! dru-dealin. e +as not even in possession of drus in

his person. e +as merel! found inside a room +ith shau, not as the roomJso+ner or occupant ut as a uest. hile he alleedl! pointed a firearm at the

u!-ust team, the prosecution curiousl! failed to produce the firearm that

accused-appellant supposedl! used.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt13


21/82

The prosecution in this case clearl! failed to sho+ all the elements of the

crime asent a sho+in of either actual or constructive possession ! the

accused-appellant.

Since accused-appellant +as not in possession of the illeal drus in /o!/icolJs nipa hut, his suse:uent arrest +as also invalid. )ule %%* of the )ules

on Criminal Procedure on +arrantless arrest provides8

Sec. #.Arrest without warrant' when lawful.--A peace officer or a private

person ma!, +ithout a +arrant, arrest a person8

a' hen, in his presence, the person to e arrested has committed, is

actuall! committin, or is attemptin to commit an offense

' hen an offense has Bust een committed, and he has proale

cause to elieve ased on personal ;no+lede of facts or

circumstances that the person to e arrested has committed it and

c' hen the person to e arrested is a prisoner +ho has escaped from

a penal estalishment or place +here he is servin final Budment or is

temporaril! confined +hile his case is pendin, or has escaped +hile

ein transferred from one confinement to another.

The +arrantless arrest of accused-appellant +as effected under Sec. #&a',

arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. 7or this t!pe of +arrantless arrest to e

valid, t+o re:uisites must concur8 &%' the person to e arrested must e=ecute

an overt act indicatin that he has Bust committed, is actuall! committin, or is

attemptin to commit a crime and &"' such overt act is done in the presence

or +ithin the vie+ of the arrestin officer.%5

Accused-appellantJs act of pointin a firearm at the u!-ust team +ould have

een sufficient asis for his arrestin flagrante delicto ho+ever, theprosecution +as not ale to ade:uatel! prove that accused-appellant +as

committin an offense. Althouh accused-appellant merel! denied possessin

the firearm, the prosecutionJs chare +as +ea; asent the presentation of the

alleed firearm. e +as eventuall! ac:uitted ! the trial court ecause of this
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_182348_2008.html#fnt14


22/82

affe. is arrest, independent of the u!-ust operation taretin /o! /icol,

+as therefore not la+ful as he +as not proved to e committin an! offense.

In sum, +e find that there is insufficient evidence to sho+ accused-appellantJs

uilt e!ond reasonale dout. avin ruled on the lac; of material orconstructive possession ! accused-appellant of the sei0ed shauand his

succeedin illeal arrest, +e deem it unnecessar! to deal +ith the other issue

raised.

7HEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTE/. The CA Decision dated Novemer

"3, "$$ in CA-(.). C)-.C. No. $""64 is REVERSE/and SET ASI/E.

Accused-appellant Carlos Dela Cru0 isA*ITTE/of violation of Sec. %%&"'

of )A 3%4# in Criminal Case No. 4#%6 of the )TC, /ranch in San ateo,

)i0al.

SO OR/ERE/.

G.R. No. 1%%0+2 No)-)r 1#, 201+

/ANILO VILLANEVA y AL*ARAZ,Petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,)espondent.

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, CJ:

e resolve the Petition%filed ! Danilo 1illanueva ! Alcara0 from the Decision"dated 5 a!

"$%% and )esolution*dated %6 Octoer "$%% issued ! the 7ourteenth Division of the Court

of Appeals &CA' in CA-(.). C.). No. *"#6".

TE ANTECEDENT 7ACTS

Petitioner Danilo 1illanueva +as chared +ith violation of Section %%, Article II of )epulic

Act &).A.' No. 3%4# or The Comprehensive Danerous Drus Act of "$$". The

Information5reads8

That on or aout the %#th da! of Kune "$$5 in Caloocan Cit!, etro anila, and +ithin the

Burisdiction of this onorale Court, the aove named accused, +ithout ein authori0ed !

la+, did then and there, +illfull!, unla+full! and feloniousl! have in his possession, custod!
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt4


23/82

and control ETAPETAINE D)OC2O)IDE &Shau' +eihin $.4* ram

;no+in the same to e a danerous dru under the provisions of the aove-cited la+.

CONT)A) TO 2A.

On %# Kul! "$$5, the accused, dul! assisted ! counsel de oficio, pleaded not uilt! to theoffense chared.#

P)OSEC9TION


24/82

SO O)DE)ED.%$

The CA revie+ed the appeal, +hich hined on one issue, vi08

TE CO9)T A H9O()A1E2 E))ED IN NOT 7INDIN( AS I22E(A2 TE ACC9SED-

APPE22ANT


25/82

Accused-appellant +as arrested +ithout a +arrant. Section #, )ule %%* of the )evised

)ules of Criminal Procedure, la!s do+n the asic rules on la+ful +arrantless arrests either

! a peace officer or a private person, as follo+s8









estalishment or place +here he is servin final Budment or is temporaril! confined+hile his case is pendin, or has escaped +hile ein transferred from one

confinement to another.

The circumstances that transpired et+een accused-appellant and the arrestin officer

sho+ none of the aove that +ould ma;e the +arrantless arrest la+ful. Nevertheless,

records reveal that accused-appellant never oBected to the irreularit! of his arrest efore

his arrainment. e pleaded not uilt! upon arrainment. e activel! participated in the trial

of the case. Thus, he is considered as one +ho had properl! and voluntaril! sumitted

himself to the Burisdiction of the trial court and +aived his riht to :uestion the validit! of his

arrest.%

The +arrantless search conducted is not amon those allo+ed ! la+.

A +aiver of an illeal arrest, ho+ever, is not a +aiver of an illeal search.%6)ecords have

estalished that oth the arrest and the search +ere made +ithout a +arrant. hile the

accused has alread! +aived his riht to contest the lealit! of his arrest, he is not deemed

to have e:uall! +aived his riht to contest the lealit! of the search.

Kurisprudence is replete +ith pronouncements on +hen a +arrantless search can e

conducted.1wphi1These searches include8 &%' search of a movin vehicle &"' sei0ure in plain

vie+ &*' customs search &5' +aiver or consented search ' stop-and-fris; situation &4'

search incidental to a la+ful arrest and &' e=ient and emerenc! circumstance.%3

The search made +as not amon the enumerated instances. Certainl!, it +as not of a

movin vehicle, a customs search, or a search incidental to a la+ful arrest. There could not

have een a sei0ure in plain vie+ as the sei0ed item +as alleedl! found inside the left

poc;et of accused-appellant


26/82

ma! seeminl! fall under the consented search e=ception, +e reiterate that >consent to a

search is not to e lihtl! inferred, ut sho+n ! clear and convincin evidence.> "$

Consent must also e voluntar! inorder to validate an other+ise illeal search that is, the

consent muste une:uivocal, specific, intellientl! iven, and uncontaminated ! an!

duress or coercion."%In this case, petitioner +as merel! >ordered> to ta;e out the contents ofhis poc;et. The testimon! of the police officer on the matter is clear8

H8 And +hat did !ou do +hen !ou fris;ed a small plastic sachetG

A8 hen I felt somethin inside his poc;et, I ordered him to rin out the thin +hich I felt.

H. 8 And +hat did Danilo 1illanueva do +hen !ou instructed him to rin out the contents of

his poc;etG

A8 e too; out the contents of his poc;et and I sa+ the plastic containin shau.""

The evidence otained is not admissile.

avin een otained throuh an unla+ful search, the sei0ed item is thus inadmissile in

evidence aainst accused-appellant. Oviousl!, this is an instance of sei0ure of the >fruit of

the poisonous tree.> ence, the confiscated item is inadmissile in evidence consonant +ith

Article III, Section *&"' of the %36 Constitution8 >An! evidence otained in violation of this

or the precedin section shall e inadmissile for an! purpose in an! proceedin.> "*ithout

the sei0ed item, therefore, the conviction of accused appellant cannot e sustained. This

ein the case, +e see no more reason to discuss the alleed lapses of the officers in the

handlin of the confiscated dru.

As a final +ord, +e reiterate that > + hile this Court appreciates and encouraes the efforts

of la+ enforcers to uphold the la+ and to preserve the peace and securit! of societ!, +e

nevertheless admonish them to act +ith delierate care and +ithin the parameters set !

the Constitution and the la+. Trul!, the end never Bustifies the means.>"5

E)E7O)E, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated 5 a! "$%% and

)esolution dated %6 Octoer "$%% issued ! the 7ourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals

in CA-(.). C.). No. *"#6" are SET ASIDE. Petitioner is here! ACH9ITTED.

SO O)DE)ED.

MARIA LOR/ES P.A. SERENO

Chief Kustice, Chairperson

E CONC9)8
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt24


27/82

7I)ST DI1ISION

G.R. No. 1%%0+2 No)-)r 1#, 201+

/ANILO VILLANEVA y AL*ARAZ,Petitioner,

vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,)espondent.

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, CJ:

e resolve the Petition%filed ! Danilo 1illanueva ! Alcara0 from the Decision"dated 5 a!

"$%% and )esolution*dated %6 Octoer "$%% issued ! the 7ourteenth Division of the Court

of Appeals &CA' in CA-(.). C.). No. *"#6".

TE ANTECEDENT 7ACTS

Petitioner Danilo 1illanueva +as chared +ith violation of Section %%, Article II of )epulic

Act &).A.' No. 3%4# or The Comprehensive Danerous Drus Act of "$$". The

Information5reads8

That on or aout the %#th da! of Kune "$$5 in Caloocan Cit!, etro anila, and +ithin the

Burisdiction of this onorale Court, the aove named accused, +ithout ein authori0ed !

la+, did then and there, +illfull!, unla+full! and feloniousl! have in his possession, custod!

and control ETAPETAINE D)OC2O)IDE &Shau' +eihin $.4* ram

;no+in the same to e a danerous dru under the provisions of the aove-cited la+.

CONT)A) TO 2A.

On %# Kul! "$$5, the accused, dul! assisted ! counsel de oficio, pleaded not uilt! to the

offense chared.#

P)OSEC9TION


28/82

od! search and, in the process, a plastic sachet of shau +as recovered from the left

poc;et of his pants. PO* Coralde mar;ed the sachet +ith the initial >DA1 $4-%#-$5>, and

PO" )e!nante ananha!a rouht it to the National Police District Scene of the Crime

Operatives &NPD-SOCO' for e=amination.DE7ENSE


29/82

On " a! "$%%, petitioner filed a otion for )econsideration,%*+hich the CA denied in a

)esolution%5dated %6 Octoer "$%%.

ence, the instant Petition, +hich revolves around the follo+in lone issue8

ETE) TE ONO)A/2E CO9)T O7 APPEA2S E))ED IN A77I)IN( TEPETITIONE)invite> him to the

precinct +ithout an! +arrant of arrest +as illeal. The evidence otained is, conse:uentl!,

inadmissile. The Office of the Solicitor (eneral filed its Comment%4statin that the shau

confiscated from petitioner +as admissile in evidence aainst him that the search

conducted on him +as valid and that he cannot raise the issue reardin the apprehendinofficers< non-compliance +ith Section "%, Article II of ).A. 3%4# for the first time on appeal.

O9) )92IN(

e find the instant appeal meritorious.

Accused-appellant is estopped from :uestionin the lealit! of his arrest.

Accused-appellant +as arrested +ithout a +arrant. Section #, )ule %%* of the )evised

)ules of Criminal Procedure, la!s do+n the asic rules on la+ful +arrantless arrests either

! a peace officer or a private person, as follo+s8









estalishment or place +here he is servin final Budment or is temporaril! confined

+hile his case is pendin, or has escaped +hile ein transferred from one

confinement to another.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt16


30/82

The circumstances that transpired et+een accused-appellant and the arrestin officer

sho+ none of the aove that +ould ma;e the +arrantless arrest la+ful. Nevertheless,

records reveal that accused-appellant never oBected to the irreularit! of his arrest efore

his arrainment. e pleaded not uilt! upon arrainment. e activel! participated in the trial

of the case. Thus, he is considered as one +ho had properl! and voluntaril! sumitted

himself to the Burisdiction of the trial court and +aived his riht to :uestion the validit! of hisarrest.%

The +arrantless search conducted is not amon those allo+ed ! la+.

A +aiver of an illeal arrest, ho+ever, is not a +aiver of an illeal search.%6)ecords have

estalished that oth the arrest and the search +ere made +ithout a +arrant. hile the

accused has alread! +aived his riht to contest the lealit! of his arrest, he is not deemed

to have e:uall! +aived his riht to contest the lealit! of the search.

Kurisprudence is replete +ith pronouncements on +hen a +arrantless search can econducted.1wphi1These searches include8 &%' search of a movin vehicle &"' sei0ure in plain

vie+ &*' customs search &5' +aiver or consented search ' stop-and-fris; situation &4'

search incidental to a la+ful arrest and &' e=ient and emerenc! circumstance.%3

The search made +as not amon the enumerated instances. Certainl!, it +as not of a

movin vehicle, a customs search, or a search incidental to a la+ful arrest. There could not

have een a sei0ure in plain vie+ as the sei0ed item +as alleedl! found inside the left

poc;et of accused-appellantconsent to a

search is not to e lihtl! inferred, ut sho+n ! clear and convincin evidence.>"$

Consent must also e voluntar! inorder to validate an other+ise illeal search that is, the

consent muste une:uivocal, specific, intellientl! iven, and uncontaminated ! an!

duress or coercion."%In this case, petitioner +as merel! >ordered> to ta;e out the contents of

his poc;et. The testimon! of the police officer on the matter is clear8

H8 And +hat did !ou do +hen !ou fris;ed a small plastic sachetG

A8 hen I felt somethin inside his poc;et, I ordered him to rin out the thin +hich I felt.

H. 8 And +hat did Danilo 1illanueva do +hen !ou instructed him to rin out the contents of

his poc;etG

A8 e too; out the contents of his poc;et and I sa+ the plastic containin shau.""

The evidence otained is not admissile.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt22


31/82

avin een otained throuh an unla+ful search, the sei0ed item is thus inadmissile in

evidence aainst accused-appellant. Oviousl!, this is an instance of sei0ure of the >fruit of

the poisonous tree.> ence, the confiscated item is inadmissile in evidence consonant +ith

Article III, Section *&"' of the %36 Constitution8 >An! evidence otained in violation of this

or the precedin section shall e inadmissile for an! purpose in an! proceedin.> "*ithout

the sei0ed item, therefore, the conviction of accused appellant cannot e sustained. Thisein the case, +e see no more reason to discuss the alleed lapses of the officers in the

handlin of the confiscated dru.

As a final +ord, +e reiterate that > + hile this Court appreciates and encouraes the efforts

of la+ enforcers to uphold the la+ and to preserve the peace and securit! of societ!, +e

nevertheless admonish them to act +ith delierate care and +ithin the parameters set !

the Constitution and the la+. Trul!, the end never Bustifies the means.>"5

E)E7O)E, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated 5 a! "$%% and

)esolution dated %6 Octoer "$%% issued ! the 7ourteenth Division of the Court of Appealsin CA-(.). C.). No. *"#6" are SET ASIDE. Petitioner is here! ACH9ITTED.

SO O)DE)ED.

G.R. No. 1%088% &a('ary 10, 2011

ELENITA *. FA&AR/O,Petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,)espondent.

D E C I S I O N

NA*HRA, J.:

At ar is a Petition for )evie+ on Certiorari under )ule 5# of the )ules of Court, see;in the

reversal of the 7eruar! %$, "$$3 Decision%of the Court of Appeals &CA', +hich affirmed

+ith modification the Auust "3, "$$4 decision"of the )eional Trial Court &)TC', /ranch #,

Qalio, A;lan, findin petitioner uilt! of violatin Presidential Decree &P.D.' No. %644, as

amended.

The facts8

Petitioner, Elenita 7aBardo, and one ?ald! 1alerio &1alerio' +ere chared +ith violation of

P.D. No. %644, as amended, efore the )TC, /ranch #, Qalio, A;lan, committed as follo+s8

That on or aout the "6th da! of Auust, "$$", in the mornin, in /arana! Andaao,

unicipalit! of Qalio, Province of A;lan, )epulic of the Philippines, and +ithin the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_199042_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt2


32/82

Burisdiction of this onorale Court, the aove-named accused, conspirin, confederatin

and mutuall! helpin one another, +ithout authorit! of la+, permit or license, did then and

there, ;no+inl!, +illfull!, unla+full! and feloniousl! have in their possession, custod! and

control t+o &"' receivers of calier .5# pistol, odel No. %3%%A% 9S +ith SN 4*$"#

and odel No. %3%%A% 9S +ith defaced serial numer, t+o &"' pieces short maa0ine of

%4 Armalite rifle, thirt!-five &*#' pieces live %4 ammunition #.#4 calier and fourteen &%5'pieces live calier .5# ammunition, +hich items +ere confiscated and recovered from their

possession durin a search conducted ! memers of the Provincial Intellience Special

Operation (roup, A;lan Police Provincial Office, Qalio, A;lan, ! virtue of Search arrant

No. $% &3' $* issued ! OIC E=ecutive Kude Dean Telan of the )eional Trial Court of

A;lan.*

hen arrained on arch "#, "$$5, oth pleaded not uilt! to the offense chared.5Durin

pre-trial, the! areed to the follo+in stipulation of facts8

%. The search +arrant suBect of this case e=ists

". Accused Elenita 7aBardo is the same person suBect of the search +arrant in this

case +ho is a resident of Sampauita )oad, Par; omes, Andaao, Qalio, A;lan

*. Accused ?ald! 1alerio +as in the house of Elenita 7aBardo in the evenin of

Auust ", "$$" ut does not live therein

5. /oth accused +ere not dul! licensed firearm holders

#. The search +arrant +as served in the house of accused Elenita 7aBardo in the

mornin of Auust "6, "$$" and

4. The accused Elenita 7aBardo and 1alerio +ere not arrested immediatel! upon the

arrival of the militar! personnel despite the fact that the latter alleedl! sa+ them in

possession of a firearm in the evenin of Auust ", "$$".#

As culled from the similar factual findins of the )TC and the CA,4these are the chain of

events that led to the filin of the information8

In the evenin of Auust ", "$$", memers of the Provincial Intellience Special

Operations (roup &PISO(' +ere instructed ! Provincial Director Police SuperintendentEdardo endo0a &P@Supt. endo0a' to respond to the complaint of concerned citi0ens

residin on Ilan-Ilan and Sampauita )oads, Par; omes III Sudivision, /arana!

Andaao, Qalio, A;lan, that armed men drin;in li:uor at the residence of petitioner +ere

indiscriminatel! firin uns.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt6


33/82

Alon +ith the memers of the A;lan Police Provincial Office, the elements of the PISO(

proceeded to the area. 9pon arrival thereat, the! noticed that several persons scampered

and ran in different directions. The respondin team sa+ 1alerio holdin t+o .5# calier

pistols. e fired shots at the policemen efore enterin the house of petitioner.

Petitioner +as seen tuc;in a .5# calier handun et+een her +aist and the +aistand ofher shorts, after +hich, she entered the house and loc;ed the main door.

To prevent an! violent commotion, the policemen desisted from enterin petitioner


34/82


35/82

= = = =

The rule is that o+nership is not an essential element of illeal possession of firearms and

ammunition. hat the la+ re:uires is merel! possession +hich includes not onl! actual

ph!sical possession ut also constructive possession or the suBection of the thin to one


36/82

The penalt! of prision ma!or in its minimum period and a fine of Thirt! thousand pesos

&P*$,$$$.$$' shall e imposed if the firearm is classified as hih po+ered firearm +hich

includes those +ith ores ier in diameter than .*6 calier and 3 millimeter such as

calier .5$, .5%, .55, .5# and also lesser caliered firearms ut considered po+erful such as

calier .*# and calier ."" center-fire manum and other firearms +ith firin capailit! of

full automatic and ! urst of t+o or three8 Provided, ho+ever, That no other crime +ascommitted ! the person arrested.

/oth +ere sentenced to suffer the penalt! of imprisonment of si= &4' !ears and one &%' da!

to t+elve &%"' !ears of prision ma!or, and to pa! a fine of P*$,$$$.$$.

On Septemer %, "$$4, onl! petitioner filed a otion for )econsideration, +hich +as denied

in an Order dated Octoer "#, "$$4. Petitioner then filed a Notice of Appeal +ith the CA.

)ulin of the CA

The CA concurred +ith the factual findins of the )TC, ut disareed +ith its conclusions of

la+, and held that the search +arrant +as void ased on the follo+in oservations8

At the time of appl!in for a search +arrant, SPO% Nathaniel A. Tan did not have personal

;no+lede of the fact that appellants had no license to possess firearms as re:uired ! la+.

7or one, he failed to ma;e a cateorical statement on that point durin the application. Also,

he failed to attach to the application a certification to that effect from the 7irearms and

E=plosives Office of the Philippine National Police. = = =, this certification is the est

evidence otainale to prove that appellant indeed has no license or permit to possess a

firearm. There +as also no e=planation iven +h! said certification +as not presented, or

even deemed no loner necessar!, durin the application for the +arrant. Such vital

evidence +as simpl! inored.%$

)esultantl!, all firearms and e=plosives sei0ed inside petitioner


37/82

At the onset, it must e emphasi0ed that the information filed aainst petitioner and 1alerio

chared duplicitous offenses contrar! to Section %* of )ule %%$ of the )ules of Criminal

Procedure, vi0.8

Sec. %*. Duplicit! of offense. F A complaint or information must chare ut one offense,

e=cept onl! in those cases in +hich e=istin la+s prescrie a sinle punishment for variousoffenses.

A readin of the information clearl! sho+s that possession of the enumerated articles

confiscated from 1alerio and petitioner are punishale under separate provisions of Section

%, P.D. No. %644, as amended ! ).A. No. 6"35. %*Illeal possession of t+o &"' pieces of

short maa0ine of %4 Armalite rifle, thirt!-five &*#' pieces of live %4 ammunition #.#4

calier, and fourteen &%5' pieces of live calier .5# ammunition is punishale under

pararaph " of the said section, vi0.8

The penalt! of prision ma!or in its minimum period and a fine of Thirt! thousand pesos&P*$,$$$.$$' shall e imposed if the firearm is classified as hih po+ered firearm +hich

includes those +ith ores ier in diameter than .*6 calier and 3 millimeter such as

calier .5$, 5%, .55, .5# and also lesser caliered firearms ut considered po+erful such as

calier .*# and calier ."" center-fire manum and other firearms +ith firin capailit! of

full automatic and ! urst of t+o or three8 Provided, ho+ever, That no other crime +as

committed ! the person arrested.%5

On the other hand, illeal possession of the t+o &"' receivers of a .5# calier pistol, model

no. %3%%A% 9S, +ith SN 4*$"#, and odel %3%%A% 9S, +ith a defaced serial

numer, is penali0ed under pararaph %, +hich states8

Sec. %. 9nla+ful manufacture, sale, ac:uisition, disposition or possession of firearms or

ammunition or instruments used or intended to e used in the manufacture of firearms or

ammunition. F The penalt! of prision correccional in its ma=imum period and a fine of not

less than 7ifteen thousand pesos &P%#,$$$.$$' shall e imposed upon an! person +ho shall

unla+full! manufacture, deal in, ac:uire, dispose, or possess an! lo+ po+ered firearm,

such as rimfire handun, .*6$ or .*" and other firearm of similar firepo+er, part of firearm,

ammunition, or machiner!, tool or instrument used or intended to e used in the

manufacture of an! firearm or ammunition8 Provided, That no other crime +as committed.%#

This is the necessar! conse:uence of the amendment introduced ! ).A. No. 6"35, +hich

cateori0ed the ;inds of firearms proscried from ein possessed +ithout a license,

accordin to their firin po+er and calier. ).A. No. 6"35 li;e+ise mandated different

penalties for illeal possession of firearm accordin to the aove classification, unli;e in the

old P.D. No. %644 +hich set a standard penalt! for the illeal possession of an! ;ind of

firearm. Section % of the old la+ reads8
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt15


38/82

Section %. 9nla+ful anufacture, Sale, Ac:uisition, Disposition or Possession of 7irearms

or Ammunition or Instruments 9sed or Intended to e 9sed in the anufacture of 7irearms

of Ammunition. F The penalt! of reclusion temporal in its ma=imum period to reclusion

perpetua shall e imposed upon an! person +ho shall unla+full! manufacture, deal in,

ac:uire dispose, or possess an! firearms, part of firearm, ammunition, or machiner!, tool or

instrument used or intended to e used in the manufacture of an! firearm or ammunition.&Emphasis ours.'

/! virtue of such chanes, an information for illeal possession of firearm should no+

particularl! refer to the pararaph of Section % under +hich the sei0ed firearm is classified,

and should there e numerous uns confiscated, each must e sorted and then rouped

accordin to the cateories stated in Section % of ).A. No. 6"35, amendin P.D. No. %644. It

+ill no loner suffice to lump all of the sei0ed firearms in one information, and state Section

%, P.D. No. %644 as the violated provision, as in the instant case,%4ecause different

penalties are imposed ! the la+, dependin on the calier of the +eapon. To do so +ould

result in duplicitous chares.

Ordinaril!, an information that chares multiple offenses merits a :uashal, ut petitioner and

1alerio failed to raise this issue durin arrainment. Their failure constitutes a +aiver, and

the! could e convicted of as man! offenses as there +ere chared in the

information.%This accords propriet! to the diverse convictions handed do+n ! the courts a

:uo.

7urther, the chare of illeal possession of firearms and ammunition under pararaph ",

Section % of P.D. No. %644, as amended ! ).A. No. 6"35, includin the validit! of the

search +arrant that led to their confiscation, is no+ e!ond the province of our revie+ since,! virtue of the CA


39/82

7irst, +e rule on the admissiilit! of the receivers. e hold that the receivers +ere sei0ed in

plain vie+, hence, admissile.

No less than our Constitution reconi0es the riht of the people to e secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects aainst unreasonale searches and sei0ures. This

riht is encapsulated in Article III, Section ", of the Constitution, +hich states8

Sec. ". The riht of the people to e secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

aainst unreasonale searches and sei0ures of +hatever nature and for an! purpose shall

e inviolale, and no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e=cept upon proale

cause to e determined personall! ! the Bude after e=amination under oath or affirmation

of the complainant and the +itnesses he ma! produce, and particularl! descriin the place

to e searched and the persons or thins to e sei0ed.

Complementin this provision is the e=clusionar! rule emodied in Section *&"' of the same

article F

&"' An! evidence otained in violation of this or the precedin section shall e inadmissile

for an! purpose in an! proceedin.

There are, ho+ever, several +ell-reconi0ed e=ceptions to the foreoin rule. Thus,

evidence otained throuh a +arrantless search and sei0ure ma! e admissile under an!

of the follo+in circumstances8 &%' search incident to a la+ful arrest &"' search of a movin

motor vehicle &*' search in violation of custom la+s &5' sei0ure of evidence in plain vie+

and ' +hen the accused himself +aives his riht aainst unreasonale searches and

sei0ures.%6

9nder the plain vie+ doctrine, oBects fallin in the >plain vie+> of an officer, +ho has a riht

to e in the position to have that vie+, are suBect to sei0ure and ma! e presented as

evidence.%3It applies +hen the follo+in re:uisites concur8 &a' the la+ enforcement officer in

search of the evidence has a prior Bustification for an intrusion or is in a position from +hich

he can vie+ a particular area &' the discover! of the evidence in plain vie+ is inadvertent

and &c' it is immediatel! apparent to the officer that the item he oserves ma! e evidence

of a crime, contraand, or other+ise suBect to sei0ure. The la+ enforcement officer must

la+full! ma;e an initial intrusion or properl! e in a position from +hich he can particularl!

vie+ the area. In the course of such la+ful intrusion, he came inadvertentl! across a piece

of evidence incriminatin the accused. The oBect must e open to e!e and hand, and its

discover! inadvertent."$

Tested aainst these standards, +e find that the sei0ure of the t+o receivers of the .5#

calier pistol outside petitioner


40/82


41/82

A es, sir.

H here +ere !ouG

A I +as at the ac; of the house that is ein cordoned ! the police.

H hile !ou +ere at the ac; of this house, do !ou recall an! unusual incidentG

A es, sir.

H Can !ou tell the onorale Court +hat +as that incidentG

A es, sir. A person +ent out at the top of the house and thre+ somethin.

H And did !ou see the person +ho thre+ somethin out of this houseG

A es, sir.

= = = =

H Can !ou tell the onorale Court +ho +as that person +ho thre+ that somethin

outside the houseG

A It +as ?ald! 1alerio.

CO9)T8 &to +itness'

H /efore the incident, !ou ;no+ this person ?ald! 1alerioG

A es, sir.

H h! do !ou ;no+ himG

A /ecause +e +ere formerl! memers of the Armed 7orces of the Philippines.

= = = =

P)OS. PE)A2TA8

H hen !ou sa+ somethin thro+n out at the top of the house, did !ou do

somethin if an!G

A I shouted to see; cover.


42/82

= = = =

H So, +hat else did !ou do if an! after !ou shouted, >ta;e coverG>

A I too; hold of a flashliht after five minutes and focused the eam of the flashliht

on the place +here somethin +as thro+n.

H hat did !ou see if an!G

A I sa+ there the lo+er part of the receiver of cal. 5#.

= = = =

H r. itness, at around 58$$ o


43/82


44/82

The foreoin dis:uisition not+ithstandin, +e find that petitioner is not liale for illeal

possession of part of a firearm.

In dissectin ho+ and +hen liailit! for illeal possession of firearms attaches, the follo+in

dis:uisitions in People v. De (racia""are instructive8

The rule is that o+nership is not an essential element of illeal possession of firearms and

ammunition. hat the la+ re:uires is merel! possession +hich includes not onl! actual

ph!sical possession ut also constructive possession or the suBection of the thin to oneJs

control and manaement.This has to e so if the manifest intent of the la+ is to e

effective. The same evils, the same perils to pulic securit!, +hich the la+ penali0es e=ist

+hether the unlicensed holder of a prohiited +eapon e its o+ner or a orro+er. To

accomplish the oBect of this la+ the proprietar! concept of the possession can have no

earin +hatsoever.

/ut is the mere fact of ph!sical or constructive possession sufficient to convict a person forunla+ful possession of firearms or must there e an intent to possess to constitute a

violation of the la+G This :uer! assumes sinificance since the offense of illeal possession

of firearms is a malum prohiitumpunished ! a special la+, in +hich case ood faith and

asence of criminal intent are not valid defenses.

hen the crime is punished ! a special la+, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not

necessar!. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohiited !

the special la+. Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must e

distinuished. A person ma! not have consciousl! intended to commit a crime ut he did

intend to commit an act, and that act is, ! the ver! nature of thins, the crime itself. In thefirst &intent to commit the crime', there must e criminal intent in the second &intent to

perpetrate the act' it is enouh that the prohiited act is done freel! and consciousl!.

In the present case, a distinction should e made et+een criminal intent and intent to

possess. hile mere possession, +ithout criminal intent, is sufficient to convict a person for

illeal possession of a firearm, it must still e sho+n that there +as animus possidendior an

intent to possess on the part of the accused. Such intent to possess is, ho+ever, +ithout

reard to an! other criminal or felonious intent +hich the accused ma! have harored in

possessin the firearm. Criminal intent here refers to the intention of the accused to commit

an offense +ith the use of an unlicensed firearm. This is not important in convictin a person

under Presidential Decree No. %644. ence, in order that one ma! e found uilt! of a

violation of the decree, it is sufficient that the accused had no authorit! or license to

possess a firearm, and that he intended to possess the same, even if such possession +as

made in ood faith and +ithout criminal intent.

Concomitantl!, a temporar!, incidental, casual, or harmless possession or control of a

firearm cannot e considered a violation of a statute prohiitin the possession of this ;ind
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt22


45/82

of +eapon,such as Presidential Decree No. %644. Thus, althouh there is ph!sical or

constructive possession, for as lon as the animus possidendiis asent, there is no offense

committed."*

Certainl!, illeal possession of firearms, or, in this case, part of a firearm, is committed +hen

the holder thereof8

&%' possesses a firearm or a part thereof

&"' lac;s the authorit! or license to possess the firearm. "5

e find that petitioner +as neither in ph!sical nor constructive possession of the suBect

receivers. The testimon! of SPO" Nava clearl! ared that he onl! sa+ 1alerio on top of the

house +hen the receivers +ere thro+n. None of the +itnesses sa+ petitioner holdin the

receivers, efore or durin their disposal.

At the ver! least, petitioner


46/82

ence, this Court is constrained to ac:uit petitioner on the round of reasonale dout. The

constitutional presumption of innocence in her favor +as not ade:uatel! overcome ! the

evidence adduced ! the prosecution.

The CA correctl! convicted 1alerio +ith illeal possession of part of a firearm.

In illeal possession of a firearm, t+o &"' thins must e sho+n to e=ist8 &a' the e=istence of

the suBect firearm and &' the fact that the accused +ho possessed the same does not

have the correspondin license for it."4

/! analo! then, a successful conviction for illeal possession of part of a firearm must

!ield these re:uisites8

&a' the e=istence of the part of the firearm and

&' the accused +ho possessed the same does not have the license for the firearmto +hich the sei0ed part@component corresponds.

In the instant case, the prosecution proved e!ond reasonale dout the

elements of the crime. The suBect receivers - one +ith the mar;ins >9nited States

Propert!> and the other earin Serial No. 4*$"# - +ere dul! presented to the court as

E=hiits E and E-%, respectivel!. The! +ere also identified ! SPO" Nava as the firearm

parts he retrieved af ter 1alerio discarded them."is testimon! +as corroorated ! DQ)

radio announcer 1ea, +ho +itnessed the recover! of the receivers."6

Anent the lac; of authorit!, SPO% Tan testified that, upon verification, it +as ascertained that

1alerio is not a dul! licensed@reistered firearm holder of an! t!pe, ;ind, or calier of

firearms."3To sustantiate his statement, he sumitted a certification*$to that effect and

identified the same in court.*%The testimon! of SPO% Tan, or the certification, +ould suffice

to prove e!ond reasonale dout the second element.*"

E)E7O)E, premises considered, the 7eruar! %$, "$$3 Decision of the Court of

Appeals is here! )E1E)SED +ith respect to petitioner Elenita 7aBardo ! Castro, +ho is

here! ACH9ITTED on the round that her uilt +as not proved e!ond reasonale dout.

SO O)DE)ED.

G.R. No. 1%1366 /)c)-)r 13, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-Appellee,vs.ARNOL/ MARTINEZ 9 NGELES, E/GAR /IZON 9 FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ 9*AROLINO, a(: RAFAEL GONZALES 9 *NANAN,Accused-Appellants.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_190889_2011.html#fnt32


47/82

D E C I S I O N

MEN/OZA, J.:

This is an appeal from the Auust , "$$3 Decision%of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-(.). C-NO. $*"43, +hich affirmed the 7eruar! %*, "$$6 Decision"of the )eional TrialCourt, /ranch 5%, Daupan Cit! (*TC),in Criminal Case No. "$$4-$#"#-D, findin theaccused uilt! of violatin Section %*, in relation to Section %%, Article II of )epulic Act No.3%4# for Possession of Danerous Drus Durin Parties, Social (atherins or eetins.

Th) Fac

The Information indictin the accused reads8

That on or aout the "nd da! of Septemer "$$4, in the Cit! of Daupan, Philippines, and+ithin the Burisdiction of this onorale Court, the aove-named accused, A)NO2DA)TINE? ! AN(E2ES, ED(A) DI?ON ! 7E))E), )E?IN A)TINE? ! CA)O2INO,

)O2AND DO)IA ! DIA? and )A7AE2 (ON?A2ES ! C9NANAN, +ithout authorit! of la+,confederatin toether, actin Bointl! and helpin one another, did then and there +ilfull!,unla+full! and criminall!, sniff and possess danerous drus &shau residues' contained inempt! plastic sachets and rolled aluminum foil, durin a part!, or at a social atherin ormeetin, or in the pro=imate compan! of at least t+o &"' persons.

Contrar! to Section %*, Article II, ).A. 3%4#. *

V)ro( o; h) Pro)c'o(

As culled from the testimonies of prosecution +itnesses, Police Officer % /ernard A0ardon

&P+1 A$ardon', one of the apprehendin officers, and Police Inspector 2ad! Ellen aranion&P"nsp. Maranion', the forensic chemical officer, it appears that on Septemer ", "$$4, ataround %"85# o


48/82

%%# plastic sachets, %% pieces of rolled used aluminum foil, and " of the 53 pieces of usedaluminum foil tested positive for methamphetamine h!drochloride. The accused +eresuBected to a dru test and, e=cept for Doria, the! +ere found to e positive formethamphetamine h!drochloride.

V)ro( o; h) /);)()

The defense, throuh its +itnesses, accused A. artine0, Di0on, and ). artine0, claimedthat in the mornin of Septemer ", "$$4, the three of them +ere alon Arellano Street inTrinidad Sudivision, Daupan Cit!, to meet +ith a certain Apper +ho umped thepassener Beep of ). artine0 and +ho +as to ive the materials for the paintin of said

Beep. As the! +ere oin around the sudivision loo;in for Apper, the! sa+ (on0ales infront of his house and as;ed him if he noticed a person pass !. hile the! +ere tal;in,Doria arrived. It +as then that five to seven policemen emered and apprehended them.The! +ere handcuffed and rouht to the police station in Pere0, Daupan Cit!, +here the!+ere incarcerated and chared +ith sniffin shau.

Th) R'4( o; h) RT*

The case aainst Doria +as dismissed on a demurrer to evidence.

On 7eruar! %*, "$$6, the )TC rendered its decision, the dispositve portion of +hich reads8

E)E7O)E, premises considered, Budment is here! rendered findin accusedA)NO2D A)TINE? ! Aneles, ED(A) DI?ON ! 7errer, )E?IN A)TINE? ! Carolino,and )A7AE2 (ON?A2ES ! Cunanan (9I2T e!ond reasonale dout of the crime ofPossession of Danerous Drus Durin Parties, Social (atherins or eetins defined andpenali0ed under Section %* in relation to Section %%, Article II of )epulic Act 3%4#, and

each of them is sentenced to suffer the penalt! of life imprisonment and to pa! the fine inthe amount of P#$$,$$$.$$, and to

Documents

Illegal Search Warrant