Notes.

In job contracting, the principal is jointly and

severally liable with the contractor and insolvency or
unwillingness to pay by the contractor or direct employer is
not a prerequisite for the joint and several liability of the
principal. (Development Bank of the Philippines vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 233 SCRA 250
[1994])
When a company contracted for security services with a
security agency, as it was the latter who hired the security
guards, said company became an indirect employer of the
security guards pursuant to Article 107 of the Labor Code.
(Manila Electric Company vs. Benamira, 463 SCRA 331
[2005])
o0o

G.R. No. 164815.

September 3, 2009.*

SR. INSP. JERRY C. VALEROSO, petitioner, vs. COURT

OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Motions for Reconsideration;
While a second motion for reconsideration is, as a general rule, a
prohibited pleading, it is within the sound discretion of the Court
to admit the same, provided it is filed with prior leave whenever
substantive justice may be better served thereby.After
considering anew Valerosos arguments through his Letter
Appeal, together with the OSGs position recommending his
acquittal, and keeping in mind that substantial rights must
ultimately reign supreme over technicalities, this Court is swayed
to reconsider. The LetterAppeal is actually in the nature of a
second motion for reconsideration. While a second motion for
reconsideration is, as a general rule, a prohibited pleading, it is
within the sound discretion of the Court to admit the same,
provided it is filed with prior leave whenever substantive justice
may be better served thereby.
_______________
*THIRD DIVISION.

42

Same; Same; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Rules of

procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of
justicecourts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn
of judicial discretion.Suspension of the rules of procedure, to
pave the way for the reexamination of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law earlier made, is not without basis. We would
like to stress that rules of procedure are merely tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice. They are conceived and
promulgated to effectively aid the courts in the dispensation of
justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn
of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always
been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm
that, on the balance, technicalities take a backseat to substantive
rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of
the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than to promote justice,
it would always be within our power to suspend the rules or
except a particular case from its operation.
Searches and Seizures; As a general rule, the procurement of a
warrant is required before a law enforcer can validly search or
seize the person, house, papers, or effects of any individual.The
right against unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution which states: SEC. 2. The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. From this
constitutional provision, it can readily be gleaned that, as a
general rule, the procurement of a warrant is required before a
law enforcer can validly search or seize the person, house, papers,
or effects of any individual.
Same; Warrantless Searches; In the exceptional instances
where a warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or seizure,
what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is
purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the
circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or
seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in
which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing
searched, and the
43

character of the articles procured.The above proscription is not,

however, absolute. The following are the wellrecognized
instances where searches and seizures are allowed even without a
valid warrant: 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest; 2. [Seizure] of evidence in plain view. The elements
are: a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless

arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of

their official duties; b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered
by the police who have the right to be where they are; c) the
evidence must be immediately apparent; and d) plain view
justified mere seizure of evidence without further search; 3.
Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
government, the vehicles inherent mobility reduces expectation of
privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable
cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity; 4.
Consented warrantless search; 5. Customs search; 6. Stop
and Frisk; 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances. 8.
Search of vessels and aircraft; [and] 9. Inspection of
buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire,
sanitary and building regulations. In the exceptional
instances where a warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search
or seizure, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search
or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the
uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose
of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable
cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the
place or thing searched, and the character of the articles
procured.
Same; Same; Arrests; Searches Incident to Lawful Arrest;
Words and Phrases; When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for
the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to
remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist
arrest or effect his escape, and, in addition, it is entirely
reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any
evidence on the arrestees person in order to prevent its
concealment or destruction; A valid arrest allows the seizure of
evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one
arrested or within the area of his immediate control; The phrase
within the area of his immediate control means the area from
within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible
evidence.We would like to stress that the scope of the
warrantless search is not without limitations. In People v.
Leangsiri (252
44

SCRA 213 [1996]), People v. Cubcubin, Jr. (360 SCRA 690 [2001]),
and People v. Estella (395 SCRA 553 [2003]), we had the occasion
to lay down the parameters of a valid warrantless search and
seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest. When an arrest is made,
it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person
arrested in order to remove any weapon that the latter might use
in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the
officers safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself
frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting
officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestees
person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.

Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the

right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search
not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible
area within the latters reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest
allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the
person of the one arrested or within the area of his
immediate control. The phrase within the area of his
immediate control means the area from within which he might
gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. A gun on a
table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as
dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing
of the person arrested.
Same; Same; Same; A cabinet which is locked could no longer
be considered as an area within the arrestees immediate control
because there is no way for him to take any weapon or to destroy
any evidence that could be used against him.We can readily
conclude that the arresting officers served the warrant of arrest
without any resistance from Valeroso. They placed him
immediately under their control by pulling him out of the bed,
and bringing him out of the room with his hands tied. To be sure,
the cabinet which, according to Valeroso, was locked, could no
longer be considered as an area within his immediate control
because there was no way for him to take any weapon or to
destroy any evidence that could be used against him. The
arresting officers would have been justified in searching the
person of Valeroso, as well as the tables or drawers in front of
him, for any concealed weapon that might be used against the
former. But under the circumstances obtaining, there was no
comparable justification to search through all the desk drawers
and cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas in that room
itself. It is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception
(warrantless
45

search as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to protect the arresting

officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be
armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from
destroying evidence within reach. The exception, therefore, should
not be strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose. In the
case before us, search was made in the locked cabinet which
cannot be said to have been within Valerosos immediate control.
Thus, the search exceeded the bounds of what may be considered
as an incident to a lawful arrest.
Same; Same; Plain View Doctrine; The plain view doctrine
may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate
seizures or to extend a general exploratory search made solely to
find evidence of defendants guilt.Nor can the warrantless
search in this case be justified under the plain view doctrine.
The plain view doctrine may not be used to launch unbridled
searches and indiscriminate seizures or to extend a general

exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendants

guilt. The doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not
searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless
inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.
Same; Same; Same; The plain view doctrine does not apply
where the police officers did not just accidentally discover the
subject firearm and ammunition but actually searched for the
evidence.The police officers were inside the boarding house of
Valerosos children, because they were supposed to serve a
warrant of arrest issued against Valeroso. In other words, the
police officers had a prior justification for the intrusion.
Consequently, any evidence that they would inadvertently
discover may be used against Valeroso. However, in this case, the
police officers did not just accidentally discover the subject
firearm and ammunition; they actually searched for evidence
against Valeroso. Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation
of Valerosos right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Consequently, the evidence obtained in violation of said right is
inadmissible in evidence against him.
Same; Same; Presumption of Regularity; While the power to
search and seize may at times be necessary for public welfare, still
it may be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the
constitutional rights of the citizens, for no enforcement of any
statute
46

is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic

principles of government; Because a warrantless search is in
derogation of a constitutional right, peace officers who conduct it
cannot invoke regularity in the performance of official functions.
Unreasonable searches and seizures are the menace against
which the constitutional guarantees afford full protection. While
the power to search and seize may at times be necessary for public
welfare, still it may be exercised and the law enforced without
transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for no
enforcement of any statute is of sufficient importance to justify
indifference to the basic principles of government. Those who are
supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the
rights of an individual in the name of order. Order is too high a
price to pay for the loss of liberty. Because a warrantless search is
in derogation of a constitutional right, peace officers who conduct
it cannot invoke regularity in the performance of official
functions.
Same; Same; Bill of Rights; Constitutional Law; The Bill of
Rights is the bedrock of constitutional government.The Bill of
Rights is the bedrock of constitutional government. If people are
stripped naked of their rights as human beings, democracy cannot
survive and government becomes meaningless. This explains why
the Bill of Rights, contained as it is in Article III of the

Constitution, occupies a position of primacy in the fundamental

law way above the articles on governmental power.
Same; Same; Same; Presumption of Innocence; It would be
better to set free ten men who might probably be guilty of the crime
charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not
commit.Without the illegally seized firearm, Valerosos
conviction cannot stand. There is simply no sufficient evidence to
convict him. All told, the guilt of Valeroso was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt measured by the required moral certainty for
conviction. The evidence presented by the prosecution was not
enough to overcome the presumption of innocence as
constitutionally ordained. Indeed, it would be better to set free ten
men who might probably be guilty of the crime charged than to
convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.
47

LETTERAPPEAL FOR REVIEW of the Decision and

Resolution of the Supreme Court.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Pablito A. Carpio and Nicolas P. Lapea, Jr. for
petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
For resolution is the LetterAppeal1 of Senior Inspector
(Sr. Insp.) Jerry C. Valeroso (Valeroso) praying that our
February 22, 2008 Decision2 and June 30, 2008 Resolution3
be set aside and a new one be entered acquitting him of the
crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
The facts are briefly stated as follows:
Valeroso was charged with violation of Presidential
Decree No. 1866, committed as follows:
That on or about the 10th day of July, 1996, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused without any authority of law, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in
his/her possession and under his/her custody and control
One (1) cal. 38 Charter Arms revolver bearing serial no.
52315 with five (5) live ammo.
without first having secured the necessary license/permit issued
by the proper authorities.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
_______________
1Rollo, pp. 229232.
2Id., at pp. 148165.
3Id., at p. 227.
4Records, p. 1.

48

When arraigned, Valeroso pleaded not guilty.5 Trial on

the merits ensued.
During trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses:
Senior Police Officer (SPO)2 Antonio Disuanco (Disuanco)
of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Central Police
District Command; and Epifanio Deriquito (Deriquito),
Records Verifier of the Firearms and Explosives Division in
Camp Crame. Their testimonies are summarized as
follows:
On July 10, 1996, at around 9:30 a.m., Disuanco
received a Dispatch Order from the desk officer directing
him and three (3) other policemen to serve a Warrant of
Arrest, issued by Judge Ignacio Salvador, against Valeroso
for a case of kidnapping with ransom.6
After a briefing, the team conducted the necessary
surveillance on Valeroso checking his hideouts in Cavite,
Caloocan, and Bulacan. Eventually, the team members
proceeded to the Integrated National Police (INP) Central
Police Station in Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw
Valeroso about to board a tricyle. Disuanco and his team
approached Valeroso. They put him under arrest, informed
him of his constitutional rights, and bodily searched him.
They found a Charter Arms revolver, bearing Serial No.
52315, with five (5) pieces of live ammunition, tucked in his
waist.7
Valeroso was then brought to the police station for
questioning. Upon verification in the Firearms and
Explosives Division in Camp Crame, Deriquito presented a
certification8 that the subject firearm was not issued to
Valeroso, but was licensed in the name of a certain Raul
Palencia Salvatierra of Sampaloc, Manila.9
_______________
5Id., at p. 33.
6Rollo, p. 149.
7Id.
8Exh. C, Folder of Exhibits.
9Rollo, pp. 149150.
49

On the other hand, Valeroso, SPO3 Agustin R. Timbol,

Jr. (Timbol), and Adrian Yuson testified for the defense.
Their testimonies are summarized as follows:
On July 10, 1996, Valeroso was sleeping inside a room in
the boarding house of his children located at Sagana
Homes, Barangay New Era, Quezon City. He was
awakened by four (4) heavily armed men in civilian attire
who pointed their guns at him and pulled him out of the

room.10 The raiding team tied his hands and placed him
near the faucet (outside the room) then went back inside,
searched and ransacked the room. Moments later, an
operative came out of the room and exclaimed, Hoy, may
nakuha akong baril sa loob!11
Disuanco informed Valeroso that there was a standing
warrant for his arrest. However, the raiding team was not
armed with a search warrant.12
Timbol testified that he issued to Valeroso a
Memorandum Receipt13 dated July 1, 1993 covering the
subject firearm and its ammunition, upon the verbal
instruction of Col. Angelito Moreno.14
On May 6, 1998, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
97, Quezon City, convicted Valeroso as charged and
sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four
(4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to
six (6) years, as maximum. The gun subject of the case was
further ordered confiscated in favor of the government.15
_______________
10Id., at p. 39.
11Valerosos testimony was corroborated by Yuson; id., at p. 151.
12Rollo, p. 152.
13Exh. 1, Folder of Exhibits.
14Rollo, p. 152.
15 The decision was penned by Judge Oscar L. Leviste; id., at pp. 38
45.
50

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed16 the

RTC decision but the minimum term of the indeterminate
penalty was lowered to four (4) years and two (2) months.
On petition for review, we affirmed17 in full the CA
decision. Valeroso filed a Motion for Reconsideration18
which was denied with finality19 on June 30, 2008.
Valeroso is again before us through this LetterAppeal20
imploring this Court to once more take a contemplative
reflection and deliberation on the case, focusing on his
breached constitutional rights against unreasonable search
and seizure.21
Meanwhile, as the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
failed to timely file its Comment on Valerosos Motion for
Reconsideration, it instead filed a Manifestation in Lieu of
Comment.22
In its Manifestation, the OSG changed its previous
position and now recommends Valerosos acquittal. After a
second look at the evidence presented, the OSG considers
the testimonies of the witnesses for the defense more
credible and thus concludes that Valeroso was arrested in a
boarding house. More importantly, the OSG agrees with

Valeroso that the subject firearm was obtained by the

police officers in violation of Valerosos constitutional right
against illegal search and seizure, and should thus be
excluded from the evidence for the prosecution. Lastly,
assuming that the subject firearm was admissible in
evidence, still, Valeroso could not be convicted of the crime,
since he was able to establish his authority to
_______________
16 Embodied in a decision dated May 4, 2004, penned by Associate
Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Danilo B. Pine and
Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurring; Rollo, pp. 1631.
17Rollo, pp. 148165.
18Id., at pp. 169177.
19Id., at p. 227.
20Supra note 1.
21Rollo, p. 230.
22Id., at pp. 239270.
51

possess the gun through the Memorandum Receipt issued

by his superiors.
After considering anew Valerosos arguments through
his LetterAppeal, together with the OSGs position
recommending his acquittal, and keeping in mind that
substantial rights must ultimately reign supreme over
technicalities, this Court is swayed to reconsider.23
The LetterAppeal is actually in the nature of a second
motion for reconsideration. While a second motion for
reconsideration is, as a general rule, a prohibited pleading,
it is within the sound discretion of the Court to admit the
same, provided it is filed with prior leave whenever
substantive justice may be better served thereby.24
This is not the first time that this Court is suspending
its own rules or excepting a particular case from the
operation of the rules. In De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan,25
despite the denial of De Guzmans motion for
reconsideration, we still entertained his Omnibus Motion,
which was actually a second motion for reconsideration.
Eventually, we reconsidered our earlier decision and
remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan for reception and
appreciation of petitioners evidence. In that case, we said
that if we would not compassionately bend backwards and
flex technicalities, petitioner would surely experience the
disgrace and misery of incarceration for a crime which he
might not have committed after all.26 Also in Astorga v.
People,27 on a second motion for reconsideration, we set
aside our earlier decision, reexamined the records of the
case, then finally acquitted Benito Astorga of the crime of

Arbitrary Detention on the ground of reasonable doubt.

And
_______________
23 See De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, 326 Phil. 182; 256 SCRA 171
(1996).
24 Astorga v. People, G.R. No. 154130, August 20, 2004, 437 SCRA 152,
155.
25Supra note 23.
26De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, id., at p. 191; p. 180.
27Supra note 24.
52

in Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Amante,28

by virtue of the January 13, 2004 En Banc Resolution, the
Court authorized the Special First Division to suspend the
Rules, so as to allow it to consider and resolve respondents
second motion for reconsideration after the motion was
heard on oral arguments. After a reexamination of the
merits of the case, we granted the second motion for
reconsideration and set aside our earlier decision.
Clearly, suspension of the rules of procedure, to pave the
way for the reexamination of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law earlier made, is not without basis.
We would like to stress that rules of procedure are
merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.
They are conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the
courts in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves
to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion.
In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they
ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that, on
the balance, technicalities take a backseat to substantive
rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the
application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than
to promote justice, it would always be within our power to
suspend the rules or except a particular case from its
operation.29
Now on the substantive aspect.
The Court notes that the version of the prosecution, as
to where Valeroso was arrested, is different from the
version of the defense. The prosecution claims that
Valeroso was arrested near the INP Central Police Station
in Culiat, Quezon City, while he was about to board a
tricycle. After placing Valeroso under arrest, the arresting
officers bodily searched him, and they found the subject
firearm and ammunition. The defense, on the other hand,
insists that he was arrested inside
_______________

28 G.R. Nos. 112526 and 118838, March 16, 2005, 453 SCRA 432.
29Astorga v. People, supra note 24, at pp. 155156.
53

the boarding house of his children. After serving the

warrant of arrest (allegedly for kidnapping with ransom),
some of the police officers searched the boarding house and
forcibly opened a cabinet where they discovered the subject
firearm.
After a thorough reexamination of the records and
consideration of the joint appeal for acquittal by Valeroso
and the OSG, we find that we must give more credence to
the version of the defense.
Valerosos appeal for acquittal focuses on his
constitutional right against unreasonable search and
seizure alleged to have been violated by the arresting police
officers; and if so, would render the confiscated firearm and
ammunition inadmissible in evidence against him.
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is
secured by Section 2, Article III of the Constitution which
states:
SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.

From this constitutional provision, it can readily be

gleaned that, as a general rule, the procurement of a
warrant is required before a law enforcer can validly search
or seize the person, house, papers, or effects of any
individual.30
To underscore the significance the law attaches to the
fundamental right of an individual against unreasonable
searches and seizures, the Constitution succinctly declares
in Article III, Section 3(2), that any evidence obtained in
viola
_______________
30 People v. Sevilla, 394 Phil. 125, 139; 339 SCRA 625, 635 (2000).
54

tion of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in

evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.31

The above proscription is not, however, absolute. The

following are the wellrecognized instances where searches
and seizures are allowed even without a valid warrant:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. [Seizure] of evidence in plain view. The elements are:
a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties; b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
who have the right to be where they are; c) the evidence must be
immediately apparent; and d) plain view justified mere seizure
of evidence without further search;
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
government, the vehicles inherent mobility reduces expectation of
privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable
cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk;
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.32
8. Search of vessels and aircraft; [and]
9. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the
enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations.33
_______________
31Id.
32People v. Tudtud, G.R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003, 412 SCRA
142, 153154; Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 263, 277; 373 SCRA
221, 232 (2002); People v. Sevilla, supra note 30, at pp. 139140; p. 636
People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 879880; 288 SCRA 626, 638 (1998).
33 Nachura, Antonio Eduardo B., Outline Reviewer in Political Law,
2009, pp. 139142.
55

In the exceptional instances where a warrant is not

necessary to effect a valid search or seizure, what
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure
is purely a judicial question, determinable from the
uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the
purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of
probable cause, the manner in which the search and
seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the
character of the articles procured.34
In light of the enumerated exceptions, and applying the
test of reasonableness laid down above, is the warrantless
search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid?
We answer in the negative.
For one, the warrantless search could not be justified as
an incident to a lawful arrest. Searches and seizures

incident to lawful arrests are governed by Section 13, Rule

126 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest.A person
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search warrant.

We would like to stress that the scope of the warrantless

search is not without limitations. In People v. Leangsiri,35
People v. Cubcubin, Jr.,36 and People v. Estella,37 we had
the occasion to lay down the parameters of a valid
warrantless search and seizure as an incident to a lawful
arrest.
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the
arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to
remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to
resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officers
safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself
frustrated. In addition, it is
_______________
34Caballes v. Court of Appeals, supra note 32, at p. 278; p. 232.
35322 Phil. 226; 252 SCRA 213 (1996).
36413 Phil 249; 360 SCRA 690 (2001).
37443 Phil. 669; 395 SCRA 553 (2003).
56

entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for

and seize any evidence on the arrestees person in order to
prevent its concealment or destruction.38
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty
and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a
warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect,
but also in the permissible area within the latters reach.39
Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of
evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of
the one arrested or within the area of his immediate
control.40 The phrase within the area of his immediate
control means the area from within which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.41 A gun on
a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be
as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the
clothing of the person arrested.42
In the present case, Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a
warrant of arrest allegedly for kidnapping with ransom. At
that time, Valeroso was sleeping inside the boarding house
of his children. He was awakened by the arresting officers
who were heavily armed. They pulled him out of the room,
placed him beside the faucet outside the room, tied his
hands, and then put him under the care of Disuanco.43 The

other police officers remained inside the room and

ransacked the locked cabinet44 where they found the
subject firearm and ammuni
_______________
38People v. Estella, id., at p. 685; p. 566.
39 People v. Cueno, 359 Phil. 151, 163; 298 SCRA 621, 632 (1998).
40People v. Cubcubin, Jr., supra note 36, at p. 271; p. 708; see People v.
Leangsiri, supra note 35.
41People v. Estella, supra note 37, at p. 685; p. 566.
42Id.
43TSN, February 19, 1997, pp. 2125.
44TSN, March 17, 1997, p. 27.
57

tion.45 With such discovery, Valeroso was charged with

illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
From the foregoing narration of facts, we can readily
conclude that the arresting officers served the warrant of
arrest without any resistance from Valeroso. They placed
him immediately under their control by pulling him out of
the bed, and bringing him out of the room with his hands
tied. To be sure, the cabinet which, according to Valeroso,
was locked, could no longer be considered as an area
within his immediate control because there was no way for
him to take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that
could be used against him.
The arresting officers would have been justified in
searching the person of Valeroso, as well as the tables or
drawers in front of him, for any concealed weapon that
might be used against the former. But under the
circumstances obtaining, there was no comparable
justification to search through all the desk drawers and
cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas in that room
itself.46
It is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception
(warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to
protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the
person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed
weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence
within reach. The exception, therefore, should not be
strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose.47 In
the case before us, search was made in the locked cabinet
which cannot be said to have been within Valerosos
immediate control. Thus, the search exceeded the bounds of
what may be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest.48
_______________
45Id., at p. 3.

46People v. Estella, supra note 37, at p. 685; p. 566.

47Id.
48Id., at p. 686; p. 567.
58

Nor can the warrantless search in this case be justified

under the plain view doctrine.
The plain view doctrine may not be used to launch
unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures or to
extend a general exploratory search made solely to find
evidence of defendants guilt. The doctrine is usually
applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence
against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes
across an incriminating object.49
As enunciated in People v. Cubcubin, Jr.50 and People v.
Leangsiri:51
What the plain view cases have in common is that the police
officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in
the course of which[,] he came inadvertently across a piece of
evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to
supplement the prior justificationwhether it be a warrant for
another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or
some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with
a search directed against the accusedand permits the
warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original
justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to
the police that they have evidence before them; the plain view
doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search
from one object to another until something incriminating at last
emerges.52

Indeed, the police officers were inside the boarding

house of Valerosos children, because they were supposed to
serve a warrant of arrest issued against Valeroso. In other
words, the police officers had a prior justification for the
intrusion. Consequently, any evidence that they would
inadvertently dis
_______________
49People v. Cubcubin, Jr., supra note 40, at p. 271; p. 708; People v.
Leangsiri, supra note 35, at p. 249; p. 231.
50Supra note 40.
51Supra note 35.
52People v. Cubcubin, Jr., supra note 36, at p. 272; p. 709; People v.
Leangsiri, supra note 35, at pp. 249250; p. 231.
59

cover may be used against Valeroso. However, in this case,

the police officers did not just accidentally discover the

subject firearm and ammunition; they actually searched for

evidence against Valeroso.
Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of
Valerosos right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Consequently, the evidence obtained in violation of said
right is inadmissible in evidence against him.
Unreasonable searches and seizures are the menace
against which the constitutional guarantees afford full
protection. While the power to search and seize may at
times be necessary for public welfare, still it may be
exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the
constitutional rights of the citizens, for no enforcement of
any statute is of sufficient importance to justify
indifference to the basic principles of government. Those
who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in
disregarding the rights of an individual in the name of
order. Order is too high a price to pay for the loss of
liberty.53
Because a warrantless search is in derogation of a
constitutional right, peace officers who conduct it cannot
invoke regularity in the performance of official functions.54
The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of constitutional
government. If people are stripped naked of their rights as
human beings, democracy cannot survive and government
becomes meaningless. This explains why the Bill of Rights,
contained as it is in Article III of the Constitution, occupies
a position of primacy in the fundamental law way above
the articles on governmental power.55
Without the illegally seized firearm, Valerosos
conviction cannot stand. There is simply no sufficient
evidence to convict
_______________
53People v. Aruta, supra note 32, at p. 895; p. 653.
54People v. Cubcubin, Jr., supra note 36, at pp. 270271; pp. 707708.
55People v. Tudtud, supra note 32, at p. 168.
60

him.56 All told, the guilt of Valeroso was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt measured by the required moral certainty
for conviction. The evidence presented by the prosecution
was not enough to overcome the presumption of innocence
as constitutionally ordained. Indeed, it would be better to
set free ten men who might probably be guilty of the crime
charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he
did not commit.57
With the foregoing disquisition, there is no more need to
discuss the other issues raised by Valeroso.
One final note. The Court values liberty and will always
insist on the observance of basic constitutional rights as a

condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative

and prosecutory powers of the government.58
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the February
22, 2008 Decision and June 30, 2008 Resolution are
RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. Sr. Insp. Jerry
Valeroso is hereby ACQUITTED of illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition.
SO ORDERED.
YnaresSantiago
(Chairperson),
Velasco, Jr. and Peralta, JJ., concur.

ChicoNazario,

Judgment and resolution reconsidered and set aside, Sr.

Insp. Jerry Valeroso acquitted of illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition.
Notes.Where the accused were lawfully arrested in
Room 504 of a hotel and a warrantless search was
conducted in Room 413, the search is illegal and the
evidence obtained
_______________
56People v. Sarap, 447 Phil. 642, 652; 399 SCRA 503, 511 (2003).
57Id., at pp. 652653; p. 512.
58People v. Januario, 335 Phil. 268, 304; 267 SCRA 608, 643 (1997).

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.