1 | P a g e VILLARAN, Cedric Emmanuel Serrano 1D 11th case in Chapter IV, on Warrantless Searches

Sr. Insp. JERRY C. VALEROSO, petitioner, v. CA and People, respondents.

G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009, Nachura, J.
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 must be exercised without transgressing the constitutional
rights of the citizens. The Court values liberty and will always insist on the observance of basic
constitutional rights as a condition sine qua non against the awesome investigation and
prosecutory powers of the government.
Facts:
The prosecution claims that Valeroso was arrested near the Integrated National Police (INP)
Central Police Station while he was about to board a tricycle. After placing Valeroso under arrest,
the arresting officers informed him of his constitutional rights, and bodily searched him, and they
found the subject firearm and ammunition (1 cal. 38 “Charter Arms” revolver with 5 live ammo.)
tucked in his waist. The raiding team was armed with a Warrant of Arrest, but not with a Search
Warrant.
The defense [Valeroso], on the other hand, insists that he was arrested inside the boarding
house of his children located at Sagana Homes, Brgy. New Era, Quezon City. At that time, Valeroso
was sleeping but was awakened by the arresting officers who pointed a gun at him pulled him
out of the room, placed him beside the faucet outside the room, and tied his hands. Some of the
police officers remained inside the room and searched the boarding house and then ransacked
the locked cabinet where they discovered the subject firearm. With such discovery, Valeroso was
charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
The RTC convicted Valeroso as charged. CA and SC affirmed the conviction. Hence, this
Letter-Appeal, in the nature of a second motion for reconsideration, by Valeroso praying for a
judgment of acquittal.
Issue:
Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid?
Ruling:
NO. Valeroso is hereby acquitted of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition on the
grounds of reasonable doubt.
As a general rule, a valid search warrant is required with the exception in cases of
warrantless searches incidental to a lawful arrest. To fall within the exception1, the following
must be present:
(1) The item to be searched was within arrestee’s custody or area of immediate control;
(2) The search was contemporaneous with the arrest.

1
Section 13, Rules 126, Rules of Court: A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapon
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
2 | P a g e VILLARAN, Cedric Emmanuel Serrano 1D 11th case in Chapter IV, on Warrantless Searches
However, the first requisite is wanting. The locked cabinet could no longer be considered
as an “area within his [Valeroso] immediate control” because there was no way for him to take
possession of the concealed firearm to pose harm to the arresting officers. Thus, the arresting
officers would have been justified in searching the person of Valeroso, as well as the tables or
drawers in front of him, but not all drawers and cabinets closed and concealed.2
Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of Valeroso’s right against unreasonable
search and seizure.3 Consequently, the evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible
in evidence.4 Without the illegally seized firearm, Valeroso’s conviction cannot stand.

If RBG asks the correlation of the Plain View Doctrine (PVD):

The PVD can be applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the
accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.
However, in this case, the police officers did not just accidentally discover the subject
firearm and ammunition; they actually searched for evidence against Valeroso.
The PVD may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to
another until something incriminating at last emerges.

2
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 affect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s
safety might be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty
of the arresting officer to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect but, also, within the
permissible area within the latter’s reach or his immediate control from which he might gain possession of a
weapon or destructible evidence.
3
Article III Section 2 of the Constitution: 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, the general rules is that 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. In this case, there
was none.
4
Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution: any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section
shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.