JUDGE ABELITA III v.

DORIA
GR.no. 170672
Facts: Judge Abelita III filed a complaint for Damages against P/Supt. Doria and
SPO3 Ramirez. Petitioner alleged that while he and his family are on their way
home, these two officers requested them to proceed to the Provincial PNP
Headquarters at Camp Boni Serrano, Masbate, Masbate. He was forcibly taken
and was searched without warrant. A shotgun was found in his possession and
he was arrested. Petitioner was charged with illegal possession of firearms and
frustrated murder. The trial court found that petitioner was at the scene of the
shooting incident in Barangay Nursery. The trial court ruled that the police officers
who conducted the search were of the belief, based on reasonable grounds, that
petitioner was involved in the incident and that the firearm used in the
commission of the offense was in his possession. The trial court ruled that
petitioners warrantless arrest and the warrantless seizure of the firearms were
valid and legal, thus, rejecting petitioners claim for frame up.
Issue: Whether the warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure were
illegal under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure;
Ruling: No.
For the warrantless arrest under this Rule to be valid, two requisites must concur:
(1) the offender has just committed an offense; and (2) the arresting peace officer
or private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to
be arrested has committed it.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure does not require
the arresting officers to personally witness the commission of the offense with
their own eyes. In this case, P/Supt. Doria received a report about the alleged
shooting incident. SPO3 Ramirez investigated the report and learned from
witnesses that petitioner was involved in the incident. They were able to track
down petitioner, but when invited to the police headquarters to shed light on the
incident, petitioner initially agreed then sped up his vehicle, prompting the police
authorities to give chase. Petitioners act of trying to get away, coupled with the
incident report which they investigated, is enough to raise a reasonable suspicion
on the part of the police authorities as to the existence of probable cause.
The seizure of the firearms was justified under the plain view doctrine. 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 the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
The police authorities were in the area because that was where they caught up with
petitioner after the chase. They saw the firearms inside the vehicle when petitioner
opened the door. Since a shooting incident just took place and it was reported that
petitioner was involved in the incident, it was apparent to the police officers that the
firearms may be evidence of a crime, hence they were justified in seizing the firearms.
PEOPLE v. MOLINA
352 SCRA 174
Facts: SPO1 Marino Paguidopon, received an information regarding the
presence of an alleged marijuana pusher in Davao City. At around 9:30 in the
morning of August 8, 1996, while the team were positioned in the house of SPO1
Paguidopon, a "trisikad" carrying the accused-appellants passed by. At that
instance, SPO1 Paguidopon pointed to the accused-appellants as the pushers.
Thereupon, the team boarded their, vehicle and overtook the "trisikad."11 SPO1
Paguidopon was left in his house, thirty meters from where the accused-
appellants were accosted.12
The police officers then ordered the "trisikad" to stop. At that point, accused-
appellant Mula who was holding a black bag handed the same to accused-
appellant Molina. Subsequently, SPO1 Pamplona introduced himself as a police
officer and asked accused-appellant Molina to open the bag.13 Molina replied,
"Boss, if possible we will settle this."14 SPO1 Pamplona insisted on opening the
bag, which revealed dried marijuana leaves inside. Thereafter; accused-
appellants Mula and Molina were handcuffed by the police officers.15
On December 6, 1996, accused-appellants, through counsel, jointly filed a
Demurrer to Evidence, contending that the marijuana allegedly seized from them
is inadmissible as evidence for having been obtained in violation of their
constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.16 The demurrer
was denied by the trial court.17A motion for reconsideration was filed by
accused-appellants, but this was likewise denied
The Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and MO1ion (In Lieu of Brief), wherein
he prayed for the acquittal of both accused-appellants.
Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest, search and seizure in the present
case fall within the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement?
Ruling: No.
As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that "reliable information"
alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence
and within the view of the arresting officers, are not sufficient to constitute
probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. Thus, in People v.
Aminnudin, it was held that "the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his
arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he
had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the MN
Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. To all
appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking
from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the
marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension."
Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must
concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he
has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer.
In the case at bar, accused-appellants manifested no outward indication that
would justify their arrest. In holding a bag on board a trisikad, accused-appellants
could not be said to be committing, attempting to commit or have committed a
crime.
Withal, the Court holds that the arrest of accused-appellants does not fall under
the exceptions allowed by the rules. Hence, the search conducted on their
person was likewise illegal. Consequently, the marijuana seized by the peace
officers could not be admitted as evidence against accused-appellants, and the
Court is thus, left with no choice but to find in favor of accused-appellants. They
are acquitted.The law mandates that searches be carried out with a search
warrant upon the existence of probable cause. Likewise, the law protects against
unreasonable searches and seizures and holds evidence taken from such
incidents as inadmissible as evidence. There are exceptions to this, the first
being seizure conducted incidental to a lawful arrest For this, there should be a
lawful arrest first, before a search can be made.

VALEROSO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR 164815 February 22, 2008

Petitioner: PSINSP JERRY C VALEROSO

Respondent: The People of the Philippines

FACTS:
On July 10, 1996, SPO2 Antonio Disuanco received a dispatch order which directed him
and three (3) other personnel to serve a warrant of arrest against petitioner in a case for
kidnapping with ransom. Then, the team proceeded to the Integrated National Police
Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw petitioner as he was about to
board a tricycle. SPO2 Disuanco and his team put the petitioner under arrest when they
found tucked in his waist a Charter Arms with five (5) live ammunition.

Petitioner was brought to the police station for questioning. A verification of the subject
firearm at the Firearms and Explosives Division at Camp Crame revealed that it was not
issued to the petitioner but to another person. Petitioner was then charged with illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition under PD No. 1866 as amended.

On May 6, 1998 trial court found petitioner guilty as charged. Petitioner moved to
reconsider but his motion was denied. He appealed to the CA. On May 4, 2004, the
appellate court affirmed the RTC disposition.

ISSUES:
I.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW IN
AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF PROOF BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
RULING:
In illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, the prosecution has the burden of
proving the twin elements of (1) the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition,
and (2) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the
corresponding license for it.[53]
The existence of the subject firearm and its ammunition was established through the
testimony of SPO2 Disuanco.[54] Defense witness Yuson also identified the firearm.[55]
Its existence was likewise admitted by the petitioner himself.[56]
The Court on several occasions ruled that either the testimony of a representative of, or
a certification from, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosive Office
attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the second element of possession of illegal firearms.[59] The
prosecution more than complied when it presented both.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 4, 2004 is AFFIRMED in
full.