SPOUSES LEOPOLDO and MA. LUISA VEROY, petitioners, vs. THE HON.

WILLIAM L. LAYAGUE, Presiding Judge, Branch XIV, Regional Trial Court at

Davao City; and BRIG. GEN. PANTALEON DUMLAO, Commanding General,
PC-Criminal Investigation Service, respondents.
G.R. No. L-95630, June 18, 1992
Petition for certiorari to review the order denying motion for hospital confinement;
mandamus to compel judge to resolve motion for bail; and prohibition to enjoin
further proceedings.
FACTS: Petitioners are husband and wife who owned and resided at Skyline Village,
Davao City. Leopoldo was appointed Assistant Administrator of SSS in June 1988
therefore the family transferred to Quezon City. The care and upkeep of the Davao
house was left to their 2 houseboys who had their assigned quarters in the
premises. Petitioners sent money to one Edna Soquilon for the houseboys salaries
and other expenses for the house. Edna was entrusted access only to the kitchen
where the circuit breaker is located. Neither Edna nor the houseboys had access to
the masters bedroom and childrens room.
In April 1990, the police, acting on information that the Davao house was being
used as a safe house of rebel soldiers, raided the same. They were able to enter the
yard but did not enter the house because they did not have a search warrant. They
called Luisa to ask for permission to search. Luisa relented to the search on the
condition that it be done in the presence of Major Ernesto Macasaet (long time
friend of petitioners). They entered the premises the following day with Major
Macasaet. The police recovered a .45 cal handgun with magazine in a black clutch
bag in an unlocked drawer in the childrens room along with jute sacks containing
printed materials of RAM-SFP and a big travelling bag containing clothing, a book
entitled Islamic Revolution Future Path of the Nation, Phil. Road map, telescope,
plastic bag with religious materials were found in the masters bedroom.
An Information was thus filed against petitioners for violation of PD 1866 (Illegal
Possession of Firearms and Ammunition in Furtherance of Rebellion). The petitioners
filed a motion for bail but such was denied on the ground that they have not been
arrested yet. Despite warrants of arrest havent been served yet, petitioners
voluntarily surrendered to Brig Gen Dumlao, Chief of PC-CIS. The latter however
refused to accept them reasoning that his office has not yet received copies of the
warrant. In the meantime, petitioners were admitted to St. Lukes Hospital for
various ailments cause or aggravated by stress because of the filing of the
complaint. The CIS made its return to the trial court informing the latter of
petitioners voluntary surrender. Petitioners reiterated motion for bail. Hearing for
bail was set. Written opposition was filed by prosecution. Upon arraignment,
petitioners pled not guilty and filed an Urgent Motion for Hospital Confinement
which was denied. The trial court ordered their commitment at the Davao City
Rehabilitation Center pending trial on merits. On MR, the court denied the same and
ordered the petitioners custody shall remain with PC-CIS pending resolution of case.
Meanwhile, they were returned to St. Lukes. Petitioners were informed of directive
to transfer them to Camp Crame thus this petition. The SC considering several
factors such as: a) that the possibility that they will flee or evade the processes of

the court is fairly remote; b) their poor medical condition; and c) the matters in their
Second Supplemental Petition especially since the prosecutions evidence refers to
constructive possession of the disputed firearms in Davao City through the two (2)
caretakers while petitioners lived in Manila since 1988, this Court, on November 20,
1990, granted petitioners provisional liberty and set the bail bond at P20,000.00
each. Petitioners posted a cash bond in the said amount of November 23, 1990.
Petitioners contention 1. Presidential Decree No. 1866, or at least the third
paragraph of Section 1 thereof, is unconstitutional for being violative of the due
process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution; 2. Presidential Decree No.
1866 has been repealed by Republic Act No. 6968; 3. Assuming the validity of the
Presidential Decree No. 1866, the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in
admitting in evidence certain articles which were clearly inadmissible for being
violative of the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
ISSUE: Whether there was violation of petitioners right against unreasonable
searches and seizure.
RULING: Yes. Petitioners aver that while they concede that Capt. Obrero had
permission from Ma. Luisa Veroy to break open the door of their residence, it was
merely for the purpose of ascertaining thereat the presence of the alleged rebel
soldiers. The permission did not include any authority to conduct a room to room
search once inside the house. The items taken were, therefore, products of an illegal
search, violative of their constitutional rights. As such, they are inadmissible in
evidence against them.
While Capt. Obrero was able to enter the compound, he did not enter the house
because he did not have a search warrant and the owners were not present. This
shows that he himself recognized the need for a search warrant, hence, he did not
persist in entering the house but rather contacted the Veroys to seek permission to
enter the same. Permission was indeed granted by Ma. Luisa Veroy to enter the
house but only to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. Under the circumstances
it is undeniable that the police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant
but did not.
Undeniably, the offense of illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum but it
does not follow that the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. Motive is
immaterial in mala prohibita but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be
summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. A search warrant is still
necessary. Hence, the rule having been violated and no exception being applicable,
the articles seized were confiscated illegally and are therefore protected by the
exclusionary principle. They cannot be used as evidence against the petitioners in
the criminal action against them for illegal possession of firearms. (Roan v.
Gonzales, 145 SCRA 689-690 [1986]). Besides, assuming that there was indeed a
search warrant, still in mala prohibita, while there is no need of criminal intent,
there must be knowledge that the same existed. Without the knowledge or
voluntariness there is no crime.
Petition GRANTED; criminal case DISMISSED.