Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME596
G.R.No.170672.August14,2009.*
221
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015712197e0c3adeb194003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/12
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME596
VOL.596,AUGUST14,2009
221
AbelitaIIIvs.Doria
ting the police authorities to give chase. Petitioners act of trying to get
away,coupledwiththeincidentreportwhichtheyinvestigated,isenoughto
raise a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police authorities as to the
existenceofprobablecause.
SameWarrantlessSearchesPlainViewDoctrineRequisites.
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an
officerwhohasarighttobeinthepositiontohavethatviewaresubjectto
seizure and may be presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine applies
when the following requisites concur: (1) the law enforcement officer in
search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a
position from which he can view a particular area (2) the discovery of the
evidence in plain view is inadvertent and (3) it is immediately apparent to
theofficerthattheitemheobservesmaybeevidenceofacrime,contraband
orotherwisesubjecttoseizure.
ActionsJudgmentsResJudicataWordsandPhrasesBarbyPrior
JudgmentandConclusivenessofJudgment,Distinguished.
Bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment differ as follows:
There is bar by prior judgment when, as between the first case where the
judgmentwasrenderedandthesecondcasethatissoughttobebarred,there
is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance,
thejudgmentinthefirstcaseconstitutesanabsolutebartothesecondaction.
Otherwiseput,thejudgmentordecreeofthecourtofcompetentjurisdiction
on the merits concludes the litigation between the parties, as well as their
privies,andconstitutesabartoanewactionorsuitinvolvingthesamecause
of action before the same or other tribunal. But where there is identity of
partiesinthefirstandsecondcases,butnoidentityofcausesofaction,the
first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly
controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein.
Thisistheconceptofresjudicataknownasconclusivenessofjudgment.
Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or
necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent
courtinwhichjudgmentisrenderedonthemeritsisconclusivelysettledby
the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and
theirprivieswhetherornottheclaim,demand,purpose,orsubjectmatterof
thetwoactionsisthesame.
222
222
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
AbelitaIIIvs.Doria
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015712197e0c3adeb194003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
2/12
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME596
VOL.596,AUGUST14,2009
223
AbelitaIIIvs.Doria
EduardoT.Sierra,Jr.forrespondents.
CARPIO,J.:
TheCase
3/12
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME596
224
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
AbelitaIIIvs.Doria
4/12
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME596
himtothepoliceheadquartersashewasreportedtobeinvolvedin
theincident.Petitioneragreedbutsuddenlyspeduphisvehicleand
proceeded to his residence. P/Supt. Doria and his companions
chasedpetitioner.Uponreachingpetitionersresidence,theycaught
up with petitioner as he was about to run towards his house. The
policeofficerssawaguninthefrontseatofthevehiclebesidethe
driversseataspetitioneropenedthedoor.Theyalsosawashotgun
at the back of the drivers seat. The police officers confiscated the
firearms and arrested petitioner. P/Supt. Doria alleged that his men
alsoarrestedotherpersonswhowereidentifiedtobewithpetitioner
during the shooting incident. Petitioner was charged with illegal
possessionoffirearmsandfrustratedmurder.Anadministrativecase
wasalsofiledagainstpetitionerbeforethisCourt.4
_______________
4 Sia Lao v. Abelita III, A.M. No. RTJ961359, 356 Phil. 575 295 SCRA 267
(1998). The Court found petitioner guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the
judiciaryanddismissedhimfromtheservicewithforfeitureofallbenefitsandwith
prejudice to reemployment in any other branch, instrumentality or agency of the
government,includinggovernmentownedandcontrolledcorporations.
225
VOL.596,AUGUST14,2009
225
AbelitaIIIvs.Doria
TheDecisionoftheTrialCourt
Inits10July2004Decision,thetrialcourtdismissedpetitioners
complaint.
The trial court found that petitioner was at the scene of the
shootingincidentinBarangayNursery.Thetrialcourtruledthatthe
police officers who conducted the search were of the belief, based
on reasonable grounds, that petitioner was involved in the incident
andthatthefirearmusedinthecommissionoftheoffensewasinhis
possession. The trial court ruled that petitioners warrantless arrest
andthewarrantlessseizureofthefirearmswerevalidandlegal.The
trialcourtgavemorecredencetothetestimoniesofrespondentswho
were presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with
law.Thetrialcourtrejectedpetitionersclaimofframeupasweak
and insufficient to overthrow the positive testimonies of the police
officerswhoconductedthearrestandtheincidentalsearch.Thetrial
courtconcludedthatpetitionersclaimfordamagesunderArticle32
oftheCivilCodeisnotwarrantedunderthecircumstances.
Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration.
Inits18October2004Order,thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion.
Hence,thepetitionbeforethisCourt.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015712197e0c3adeb194003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
5/12
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME596
TheIssues
Theissuesinthiscasearethefollowing:
1.Whether the warrantless arrest and warrantless search and
seizure were illegal under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985
RulesonCriminalProcedure
2.Whether respondents are civilly liable for damages under
Articles32(4)and(9)oftheCivilCodeand
3.Whether the findings in the administrative case against
petitionerareconclusiveinthiscase.
226
226
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
AbelitaIIIvs.Doria
TheRulingofthisCourt
Thepetitionhasnomerit.
ApplicationofSection5,Rule113ofthe
1985RulesonCriminalProcedure
Petitioner alleges that his arrest and the search were unlawful
underSection5,Rule113ofthe1985RulesonCriminalProcedure.
Petitioner alleges that for the warrantless arrest to be lawful, the
arresting officer must have personal knowledge of facts that the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attemptingtocommitanoffense.Petitionerallegesthatthealleged
shootingincidentwasjustrelayedtothearrestingofficers,andthus
theyhavenopersonalknowledgeoffactsasrequiredbytheRules.
Wedonotagree.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
states:
Sec.5.Arrest without warrant when lawful.A peace officer or a
privatepersonmay,withoutawarrant,arrestaperson:
(a)When,inhispresence,thepersontobearrestedhascommitted,is
actuallycommitting,orisattemptingtocommitanoffense
(b)When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committeditand
(c)Whenthepersontobearrestedisaprisonerwhohasescapedfrom
a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferredfromoneconfinementtoanother.
6/12
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME596
offenseand(2)thearrestingpeaceofficerorprivateperson
227
VOL.596,AUGUST14,2009
227
AbelitaIIIvs.Doria
228
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
AbelitaIIIvs.Doria
PlainViewDoctrine
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015712197e0c3adeb194003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
7/12
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME596
The seizure of the firearms was justified under the plain view
doctrine.
Undertheplainviewdoctrine,objectsfallingintheplainviewof
anofficerwhohasarighttobeinthepositiontohavethatvieware
subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.9 The plain
viewdoctrineapplieswhenthefollowingrequisitesconcur:(1)the
law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can
view a particular area (2) the discovery of the evidence in plain
viewisinadvertentand(3)itisimmediatelyapparenttotheofficer
thattheitemheobservesmaybeevidenceofacrime,contrabandor
otherwisesubjecttoseizure.10
In this case, the police authorities were in the area because that
waswheretheycaughtupwithpetitionerafterthechase.Theysaw
the firearms inside the vehicle when petitioner opened the door.
Since a shooting incident just took place and it was reported that
petitionerwasinvolvedintheincident,itwasapparenttothepolice
officers that the firearms may be evidence of a crime. Hence, they
werejustifiedinseizingthefirearms.
CivilLiabilityUnderArticle32oftheCivilCode
Petitioner alleges that respondents are civilly liable under
paragraphs(4)and(9)ofArticle32oftheCivilCode.
Paragraphs (4) and (9) of Article 32 of the Civil Code
respectivelystate:
Art.32.Any public officer or employee, or any private individual,
whodirectlyorindirectlyobstructs,defeats,violatesorin
_______________
9Abenesv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.156320,14February2007,515SCRA690.
10Id.
229
VOL.596,AUGUST14,2009
229
AbelitaIIIvs.Doria
any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of
anotherpersonshallbeliabletothelatterfordamages:
xxxx
(4)Freedomfromarbitraryorillegaldetention
xxxx
(9)The right to be secure in ones person, house, papers, and effects
againstunreasonablesearchesandseizures
xxx
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015712197e0c3adeb194003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
8/12
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME596
230
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
AbelitaIIIvs.Doria
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the
matterdirectlyadjudgedorastoanyothermatterthatcouldhavebeenraised
in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in
interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special
proceeding,litigatingforthesamethingandunderthesametitleandinthe
samecapacityand
(c)Inanyotherlitigationbetweenthesamepartiesortheirsuccessors
ininterest,thatonlyisdeemedtohavebeenadjudgedinaformerjudgment
or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or
whichwasactuallyandnecessarilyincludedthereinornecessarythereto.
Barbypriorjudgmentandconclusivenessofjudgmentdifferas
follows:
Thereisbarbypriorjudgmentwhen,asbetweenthefirstcase
wherethejudgmentwasrenderedandthesecondcasethatissought
tobebarred,thereisidentityofparties,subjectmatter,andcausesof
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015712197e0c3adeb194003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/12
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME596
action.Inthisinstance,thejudgmentinthefirstcaseconstitutesan
absolute bar to the second action. Otherwise put, the judgment or
decreeofthecourtofcompetentjurisdictiononthemeritsconcludes
the litigation between the parties, as well as their privies, and
constitutesabartoanewactionorsuitinvolvingthesamecauseof
actionbeforethesameorothertribunal.
Butwherethereisidentityofpartiesinthefirstandsecondcases,
butnoidentityofcausesofaction,thefirstjudgmentisconclusive
only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and
determinedandnotastomattersmerelyinvolvedtherein.Thisisthe
concept of res judicata known as conclusiveness of judgment.
Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly
adjudicatedornecessarilyinvolvedinthedeterminationofanaction
before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the
merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot
again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or
nottheclaim,demand,purpose,orsubjectmatterofthetwoactions
isthesame.12
_______________
12Id.
231
VOL.596,AUGUST14,2009
231
AbelitaIIIvs.Doria
10/12
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME596
232
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
AbelitaIIIvs.Doria
casewerenotpartiestotheadministrativecasebetweenSiaLaoand
petitioner. In the present case, petitioner is the complainant against
respondents. Hence, while res judicata is not a defense to
petitionerscomplaintfordamages,respondentsneverthelesscannot
beheldliablefordamagesasdiscussedabove.
WHEREFORE,weDENYthepetition.WeAFFIRMthe10July
2004 Decision and 18 October 2004 Order of the Regional Trial
CourtofQuezonCity,Branch217,inCivilCaseNo.Q9833442.
SOORDERED.
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Corona, LeonardoDe Castro and
Bersamin,JJ.,concur.
Petitiondenied,judgmentandorderaffirmed.
Notes.A judgment is on the merits when it determines the
rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts,
irrespectiveofformal,technicalordilatoryobjections,anditisnot
necessary that there should have been trial. (Mendiola vs. Court of
Appeals,258SCRA492[1996])
Dismissalsunderparagraphs(f),(h),and(i)ofSection1ofRule
16 of the Rules of Court constitute res judicata. (Cruz vs. Caraos,
521SCRA510[2007])
o0o
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015712197e0c3adeb194003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
11/12
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME596
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015712197e0c3adeb194003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
12/12