FRANCO, MANUEL JOSEPH U.

CLAW | JD-1B TTh | 2:30-4:30PM

GALVANTE VS. CASIMIRO

GR NO. 162808
April 22, 2008

FACTS:
On May 14, 2001, private respondents (four policemen) confiscated from petitioner (Galvante)
one pistol super .38 automatic, one short magazine and nine super .38 live ammunitions which
were all covered by an expired MR. The petitioner contends that the conduction of search by the
private respondents in his jeep is illegal as it without a search warrant. The petitioner also
contends that he was arbitrarily detained by the private respondents was only released on May
16, 2001.
In consequence, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor file an information for Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Ammunitions docketed as Crim Case No. 5047 before RTC of Prosperidad against
the petitioner.
The petitioner then file an administrative case at the DILG and a criminal case at the
Ombudsman against the Private respondents for Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Search and Grave
Threats. The private respondents were suspended with respect to the decision issued by IAS. The
Criminal Case No. 5047 was then dismissed as per granted by RTC the prosecutions' motion to
dismiss.
On the opposite, the Ombudsman found no probable cause for the offense charged against the
private respondents also denying the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Thus, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the private respondents' warrantless search illegal.
Whether or not the private respondents commit arbitrary detention.

HELD:
The Supreme affirmed the Ombudsman's decision.
The Supreme Court said that warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The Conduct of a
warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under RPC or any other special law.
What RPC punishes only two forms of of searches under Articles 129 and 130 where the current
situation does not fall squarely to those articles. And his remedy should be Civil Case for
damages under Article 32, in relation to Article 2219 (6) and (10) of the Civil Code.
The Supreme Court sustained that private respondents cannot be held liable for Arbitrary
Detention that the second element is missing, the the private offender should detained the
complainant or the petitioner.