Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Valeroso (Valeroso) praying that our February 22, 2008Decision[2] and June
30, 2008 Resolution[3] be set aside and a new one be entered acquitting him
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
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
ensued.
Order from the desk officer directing him and three (3) other policemen to
Police (INP) Central Police Station in Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw
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
Deriquito presented a certification[8] that the subject firearm was not issued
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
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
Disuanco informed Valeroso that there was a standing warrant for his
arrest. However, the raiding team was not armed with a search warrant.[12]
Receipt[13] dated July 1, 1993 covering the subject firearm and its
On May 6, 1998, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 97, Quezon
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
but the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty was lowered to four (4)
In its Manifestation, the OSG changed its previous position and now
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
convicted of the crime, since he was able to establish his authority to possess
Appeal, together with the OSGs position recommending his acquittal, and
keeping in mind that substantial rights must ultimately reign supreme over
admit the same, provided it is filed with prior leave whenever substantive
This is not the first time that this Court is suspending its own rules or
our earlier decision and remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan for
for a crime which he might not have committed after all.[26] Also in Astorga
decision, re-examined the records of the case, then finally acquitted Benito
virtue of the January 13, 2004 En Banc Resolution, the Court authorized the
resolve respondents second motion for reconsideration after the motion was
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
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,
backseat to substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the
justice, it would always be within our power to suspend the rules or except a
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 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
the joint appeal for acquittal by Valeroso and the OSG, we find that we must
against unreasonable search and seizure alleged to have been violated by the
arresting police officers; and if so, would render the confiscated firearm and
individual.[30]
the well-recognized instances where searches and seizures are allowed even
which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the
reasonableness laid down above, is the warrantless search and seizure of the
a lawful arrest. Searches and seizures incident to lawful arrests are governed
Jr.,[36] and People v. Estella,[37] we had the occasion to lay down the
lawful arrest.
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
destruction.[38]
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of
person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within the latters
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
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 cabinet[44] where they found the subject
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
way for him to take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be
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
through all the desk drawers and cabinets or the other closed or concealed
from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a
concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within
needed to serve its purpose.[47] In the case before us, search was made in the
immediate control. Thus, the search exceeded the bounds of what may be
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
where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but
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
justification whether 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 accused and 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]
issued against Valeroso. In other words, the police officers had a prior
justification for the intrusion. Consequently, any evidence that they would
Unreasonable searches and seizures are the menace against which the
and seize may at times be necessary for public welfare, still it may be
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
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
governmental power.[55]
stand. There is simply no sufficient evidence to convict him. [56] All told, the
guilt of Valeroso was not proven beyond reasonable doubt measured by the
might probably be guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent
One final note. The Court values liberty and will always insist on the
Decision and June 30, 2008 Resolution are RECONSIDERED and SET
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
Rollo, pp. 229-232.
[2]
Id. at 148-165.
[3]
Id. at 227.
[4]
Records, p. 1.
[5]
Id. at 33.
[6]
Rollo, p. 149.
[7]
Id.
[8]
Exh. C, Folder of Exhibits.
[9]
Rollo, pp. 149-150.
[10]
Id. at 39.
[11]
Valerosos testimony was corroborated by Yuson; id. at 151.
[12]
Rollo, p. 152.
[13]
Exh. 1, Folder of Exhibits.
[14]
Rollo, p. 152.
[15]
The decision was penned by Judge Oscar L. Leviste; id. at 38-45.
[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. 16-31.
[17]
Rollo, pp. 148-165.
[18]
Id. at 169-177.
[19]
Id. at 227.
[20]
Supra note 1.
[21]
Rollo, p. 230.
[22]
Id. at 239-270.
[23]
See De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, 326 Phil. 182 (1996).
[24]
Astorga v. People, G.R. No. 154130, August 20, 2004, 437 SCRA 152, 155.
[25]
Supra note 23.
[26]
De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, id. at 191.
[27]
Supra note 24.
[28]
G.R. Nos. 112526 and 118838, March 16, 2005, 453 SCRA 432.
[29]
Astorga v. People, supra note 24, at 155-156.
[30]
People v. Sevilla, 394 Phil. 125, 139 (2000).
[31]
Id.
[32]
People v. Tudtud, G.R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003, 412 SCRA 142, 153-154; Caballes v. Court of
Appeals, 424 Phil. 263, 277 (2002); People v. Sevilla, supra note 30, at 139-140; People v. Aruta, 351 Phil.
868, 879-880 (1998).
[33]
Nachura, Antonio Eduardo B., Outline Reviewer in Political Law, 2009, pp. 139-142.
[34]
Caballes v. Court of Appeals, supra note 32, at 278.
[35]
322 Phil. 226 (1996).
[36]
413 Phil 249 (2001).
[37]
443 Phil. 669 (2003).
[38]
People v. Estella, id. at 685.
[39]
People v. Cueno, 359 Phil. 151, 163 (1998).
[40]
People v. Cubcubin, Jr., supra note 36, at 271; see People v. Leangsiri, supra note 35.
[41]
People v. Estella, supra note 37, at 685.
[42]
Id.
[43]
TSN, February 19, 1997, pp. 21-25.
[44]
TSN, March 17, 1997, p. 27.
[45]
Id. at 3.
[46]
People v. Estella, supra note 37, at 685.
[47]
Id.
[48]
Id. at 686.
[49]
People v. Cubcubin, Jr., supra note 40, at 271; People v. Leangsiri, supra note 35, at 249.
[50]
Supra note 40.
[51]
Supra note 35.
[52]
People v. Cubcubin, Jr., supra note 36, at 272; People v. Leangsiri, supra note 35, at 249-250.
[53]
People v. Aruta, supra note 32, at 895.
[54]
People v. Cubcubin, Jr., supra note 36, at 270-271.
[55]
People v. Tudtud, supra note 32, at 168.
[56]
People v. Sarap, 447 Phil. 642, 652 (2003).
[57]
Id. at 652-653.
[58]
People v. Januario, 335 Phil. 268, 304 (1997).