Padilla v the Court of Appeals G.R. No.

121917 3/12/1997 Justice Francisco

Facts of the Case The petitioner, Padilla, was involved in a hit and run accident on 10/26/1992. A witness in a nearby restaurant heard screeching tires and subsequently saw a man lying on the ground. The witness, alerted the authorities regarding the incident and pursued the suspect. Upon apprehension by the authorities, the suspect was caught with several unlicensed firearms and ammunition. Padilla failed to produce the necessary documents to justify the possession of the firearms. His charge of hit and run was modified to illegal possession of firearms. He was tried and found guilty.

Issue: Whether or not his arrest was illegal and was the firearms and ammo taken as evidence is admissible despite the exclusionary rule. Whether or not he was authorized to carry the firearms he was caught with under a MO and MR. Whether or not the sentence served to him was excessive and cruel punishment prescribed by the 1987 Constitution.

Held: Decision of CA is affirmed but sentence is modified to 10 years and 1 day (min.) to 18 years. 8 months and 1 day (max.)

Ratio: No warrant was issued for his arrest. But none was needed because it was sanctioned in Rule 113 Sec. 5 of the revised rules on Criminal Procedure. This stated that a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person (a) when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

The seizure of the firearms was incidental to lawful arrest and also valid because as recognized under Rule 126 of Rules of Court Sec. 12. This states that the item to be searched must be within arrestees custody or area of immediate control and search contemporaneous with arrest Seizure of evidence in plain view, elements of which are: (a) prior valid intrusion based on valid warrantless arrest in which police are legally present in pursuit of official duties, (b) evidence inadvertedly discovered by police who had the right to be there, (c) evidence immediately apparent, and (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. He was not authorized to carry the firearms because he didnt have a MO and a MR. the 2 requisites: 1. The existence of the subject firearms and the person doesnt have the proper license or permit. Upon checking with the proper agencies his name wasnt on the list of those Non-uniformed personnel or Civilian Agents of the PNP who were allowed to carry. The M-16 and short arms higher than a .38 cannot be license to a civilian. The severity of the penalty does not ipso facto make the same cruel and excessive. Every law has in its favour the presumption of constitutionality.