SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018,

, 11*51 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM

admit the same, provided it is filed with prior leave whenever

substantive justice may be better served thereby.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

Notes.·In job contracting, the principal is jointly and

severally liable with the contractor and insolvency or 42
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. Same; Same; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Rules of
National Labor Relations Commission, 233 SCRA 250 procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of
[1994]) justice·courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of
When a company contracted for security services with a judicial discretion.·Suspension of the rules of procedure, to pave
security agency, as it was the latter who hired the security the way for the re-examination of the findings of fact and
guards, said company became an indirect employer of the conclusions of law earlier made, is not without basis. We would like
security guards pursuant to Article 107 of the Labor Code. to stress that rules of procedure are merely tools designed to
(Manila Electric Company vs. Benamira, 463 SCRA 331 facilitate the attainment of justice. They are conceived and
[2005]) promulgated to effectively aid the courts in the dispensation of
justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of
··o0o·· 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
G.R. No. 164815. September 3, 2009.*
would tend to frustrate rather than to promote justice, it would
always be within our power to suspend the rules or except a
SR. INSP. JERRY C. VALEROSO, petitioner, vs. COURT
particular case from its operation.
OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents. 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
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Motions for Reconsideration; against unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by Section 2,
While a second motion for reconsideration is, as a general rule, a Article III of the Constitution which states: SEC. 2. The right of the
prohibited pleading, it is within the sound discretion of the Court to people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
admit the same, provided it is filed with prior leave whenever against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and
substantive justice may be better served thereby.·After considering for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
anew ValerosoÊs arguments through his Letter-Appeal, together warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
with the OSGÊs position recommending his acquittal, and keeping in determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
mind that substantial rights must ultimately reign supreme over affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
technicalities, this Court is swayed to reconsider. The Letter-Appeal and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
is actually in the nature of a second motion for reconsideration. or things to be seized. From this constitutional provision, it can
While a second motion for reconsideration is, as a general rule, a readily be gleaned that, as a general rule, the procurement of a
prohibited pleading, it is within the sound discretion of the Court to

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 1 of 21 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 2 of 21

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM

warrant is required before a law enforcer can validly search or seize and Phrases; When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the
the person, house, papers, or effects of any individual. 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
Same; Warrantless Searches; In the exceptional instances where
escape, and, in addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting
a warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or seizure, what
officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arresteeÊs person in
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely
order to prevent its concealment or destruction; A valid arrest allows
a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the
the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of
circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or
the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control; The
seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in
phrase „within the area of his immediate control‰ means the area
which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched,
from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or
and the
destructible evidence.·We would like to stress that the scope of the
43
warrantless search is not without limitations. In People v. Leangsiri
(252

character of the articles procured.·The above proscription is not, 44

however, absolute. The following are the well-recognized instances
where searches and seizures are allowed even without a valid
SCRA 213 [1996]), People v. Cubcubin, Jr. (360 SCRA 690 [2001]),
warrant: 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
and People v. Estella (395 SCRA 553 [2003]), we had the occasion to
2. [Seizure] of evidence in „plain view.‰ The elements are: a) a
lay down the parameters of a valid warrantless search and seizure
prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which
as an incident to a lawful arrest. When an arrest is made, it is
the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in
b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have
order to remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to
the right to be where they are; c) the evidence must be immediately
resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officerÊs safety
apparent; and d) „plain view‰ justified mere seizure of evidence
might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In
without further search; 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly
addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search
regulated by the government, the vehicleÊs inherent mobility
for and seize any evidence on the arresteeÊs person in order to
reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public
prevent its concealment or destruction. Moreover, in lawful arrests,
thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to
it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers
probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity; 4.
to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the
Consented warrantless search; 5. Customs search; 6. Stop and
suspect, but also in the permissible area within the latterÊs reach.
Frisk; 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances. 8. Search of
Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or
vessels and aircraft; [and] 9. Inspection of buildings and
dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or
other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and
within the area of his immediate control. The phrase „within
building regulations. In the exceptional instances where a
the area of his immediate control‰ means the area from within
warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or seizure, what
which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely
evidence. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is
a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the
arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one
circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or
concealed in the clothing of the person arrested.
seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in
which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing Same; Same; Same; A cabinet which is locked could no longer
searched, and the character of the articles procured. be considered as an area within the arresteeÊs immediate control
because there is no way for him to take any weapon or to destroy any
Same; Same; Arrests; Searches Incident to Lawful Arrest; Words
evidence that could be used against him.·We can readily conclude

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 3 of 21 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 4 of 21

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM

that the arresting officers served the warrant of arrest without any children, because they were supposed to serve a warrant of arrest
resistance from Valeroso. They placed him immediately under their issued against Valeroso. In other words, the police officers had a
control by pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him out of the prior justification for the intrusion. Consequently, any evidence that
room with his hands tied. To be sure, the cabinet which, according they would inadvertently discover may be used against Valeroso.
to Valeroso, was locked, could no longer be considered as an „area However, in this case, the police officers did not just accidentally
within his immediate control‰ because there was no way for him to discover the subject firearm and ammunition; they actually
take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used searched for evidence against Valeroso. Clearly, the search made
against him. The arresting officers would have been justified in was illegal, a violation of ValerosoÊs right against unreasonable
searching the person of Valeroso, as well as the tables or drawers in search and seizure. Consequently, the evidence obtained in violation
front of him, for any concealed weapon that might be used against of said right is inadmissible in evidence against him.
the former. But under the circumstances obtaining, there was no Same; Same; Presumption of Regularity; While the power to
comparable justification to search through all the desk drawers and search and seize may at times be necessary for public welfare, still it
cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. It may be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the
is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception (warrantless constitutional rights of the citizens, for no enforcement of any statute

45
46

search as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to protect the arresting is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic
officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be principles of government; Because a warrantless search is in
armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from derogation of a constitutional right, peace officers who conduct it
destroying evidence within reach. The exception, therefore, should cannot invoke regularity in the performance of official functions.·
not be strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose. In the Unreasonable searches and seizures are the menace against which
case before us, search was made in the locked cabinet which cannot the constitutional guarantees afford full protection. While the
be said to have been within ValerosoÊs immediate control. Thus, the power to search and seize may at times be necessary for public
search exceeded the bounds of what may be considered as an welfare, still it may be exercised and the law enforced without
incident to a lawful arrest. transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for no
Same; Same; Plain View Doctrine; The „plain view doctrine‰ enforcement of any statute is of sufficient importance to justify
may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate indifference to the basic principles of government. Those who are
seizures or to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the
evidence of defendantÊs guilt.·Nor can the warrantless search in rights of an individual in the name of order. Order is too high a
this case be justified under the „plain view doctrine.‰ The „plain price to pay for the loss of liberty. Because a warrantless search is
view doctrine‰ may not be used to launch unbridled searches and in derogation of a constitutional right, peace officers who conduct it
indiscriminate seizures or to extend a general exploratory search cannot invoke regularity in the performance of official functions.
made solely to find evidence of defendantÊs guilt. The doctrine is Same; Same; Bill of Rights; Constitutional Law; The Bill of
usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence Rights is the bedrock of constitutional government.·The Bill of
against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an Rights is the bedrock of constitutional government. If people are
incriminating object. stripped naked of their rights as human beings, democracy cannot
Same; Same; Same; The plain view doctrine does not apply survive and government becomes meaningless. This explains why
where the police officers did not just accidentally discover the subject the Bill of Rights, contained as it is in Article III of the
firearm and ammunition but actually searched for the evidence.· Constitution, occupies a position of primacy in the fundamental law
The police officers were inside the boarding house of ValerosoÊs way above the articles on governmental power.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 5 of 21 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 6 of 21

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM

Same; Same; Same; Presumption of Innocence; It would be CONTRARY TO LAW.‰4

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, ValerosoÊs conviction
1 Rollo, pp. 229-232.
cannot stand. There is simply no sufficient evidence to convict him.
2 Id., at pp. 148-165.
All told, the guilt of Valeroso was not proven beyond reasonable
3 Id., at p. 227.
doubt measured by the required moral certainty for conviction. The
4 Records, p. 1.
evidence presented by the prosecution was not enough to overcome
the presumption of innocence as constitutionally ordained. Indeed, 48
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. When arraigned, Valeroso pleaded „not guilty.‰5 Trial on
the merits ensued.
47 During trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses:
Senior Police Officer (SPO)2 Antonio Disuanco (Disuanco)
of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Central Police
LETTER-APPEAL FOR REVIEW of the Decision and
District Command; and Epifanio Deriquito (Deriquito),
Resolution of the Supreme Court.
Records Verifier of the Firearms and Explosives Division in
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Camp Crame. Their testimonies are summarized as
Pablito A. Carpio and Nicolas P. Lapeña, Jr. for
follows:
petitioner.
On July 10, 1996, at around 9:30 a.m., Disuanco
The Solicitor General for respondent.
received a Dispatch Order from the desk officer directing
RESOLUTION him and three (3) other policemen to serve a Warrant of
Arrest, issued by Judge Ignacio Salvador, against Valeroso
NACHURA, J.: for a case of kidnapping with ransom.6
For resolution is the Letter-Appeal1 of Senior Inspector After a briefing, the team conducted the necessary
(Sr. Insp.) Jerry C. Valeroso (Valeroso) praying that our surveillance on Valeroso checking his hideouts in Cavite,
February 22, 2008 Decision2 and June 30, 2008 Resolution3 Caloocan, and Bulacan. Eventually, the team members
be set aside and a new one be entered acquitting him of the proceeded to the Integrated National Police (INP) Central
crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. Police Station in Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw
The facts are briefly stated as follows: Valeroso about to board a tricyle. Disuanco and his team
Valeroso was charged with violation of Presidential approached Valeroso. They put him under arrest, informed
Decree No. 1866, committed as follows: him of his constitutional rights, and bodily searched him.
They found a Charter Arms revolver, bearing Serial No.
„That on or about the 10th day of July, 1996, in Quezon City, 52315, with five (5) pieces of live ammunition, tucked in his
Philippines, the said accused without any authority of law, did then waist.7
and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her Valeroso was then brought to the police station for
possession and under his/her custody and control questioning. Upon verification in the Firearms and
One (1) cal. 38 „Charter Arms‰ revolver bearing serial no. Explosives Division in Camp Crame, Deriquito presented a
52315 with five (5) live ammo. certification8 that the subject firearm was not issued to
without first having secured the necessary license/permit issued by Valeroso, but was licensed in the name of a certain Raul
the proper authorities. Palencia Salvatierra of Sampaloc, Manila.9

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 7 of 21 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 8 of 21

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM

_______________ 14 Rollo, p. 152.

15 The decision was penned by Judge Oscar L. Leviste; id., at pp. 38-
5 Id., at p. 33.
45.
6 Rollo, p. 149.
7 Id. 50
8 Exh. „C,‰ Folder of Exhibits.
9 Rollo, pp. 149-150.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed16 the
49 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
On the other hand, Valeroso, SPO3 Agustin R. Timbol, decision. Valeroso filed a Motion for Reconsideration18
Jr. (Timbol), and Adrian Yuson testified for the defense. which was denied with finality19 on June 30, 2008.
Their testimonies are summarized as follows: Valeroso is again before us through this Letter-Appeal20
On July 10, 1996, Valeroso was sleeping inside a room in imploring this Court to once more take a contemplative
the boarding house of his children located at Sagana reflection and deliberation on the case, focusing on his
Homes, Barangay New Era, Quezon City. He was breached constitutional rights against unreasonable search
awakened by four (4) heavily armed men in civilian attire and seizure.21
who pointed their guns at him and pulled him out of the Meanwhile, as the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
room.10 The raiding team tied his hands and placed him failed to timely file its Comment on ValerosoÊs Motion for
near the faucet (outside the room) then went back inside, Reconsideration, it instead filed a Manifestation in Lieu of
searched and ransacked the room. Moments later, an Comment.22
operative came out of the room and exclaimed, „Hoy, may In its Manifestation, the OSG changed its previous
nakuha akong baril sa loob!‰11 position and now recommends ValerosoÊs acquittal. After a
Disuanco informed Valeroso that there was a standing second look at the evidence presented, the OSG considers
warrant for his arrest. However, the raiding team was not the testimonies of the witnesses for the defense more
armed with a search warrant.12 credible and thus concludes that Valeroso was arrested in a
Timbol testified that he issued to Valeroso a boarding house. More importantly, the OSG agrees with
Memorandum Receipt13 dated July 1, 1993 covering the Valeroso that the subject firearm was obtained by the
subject firearm and its ammunition, upon the verbal police officers in violation of ValerosoÊs constitutional right
instruction of Col. Angelito Moreno.14 against illegal search and seizure, and should thus be
On May 6, 1998, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch excluded from the evidence for the prosecution. Lastly,
97, Quezon City, convicted Valeroso as charged and assuming that the subject firearm was admissible in
sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four evidence, still, Valeroso could not be convicted of the crime,
(4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to since he was able to establish his authority to
six (6) years, as maximum. The gun subject of the case was
further ordered confiscated in favor of the government.15
_______________

_______________ 16 Embodied in a decision dated May 4, 2004, penned by Associate

Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Danilo B. Pine and
10 Id., at p. 39.
Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurring; Rollo, pp. 16-31.
11 ValerosoÊs testimony was corroborated by Yuson; id., at p. 151.
17 Rollo, pp. 148-165.
12 Rollo, p. 152.
18 Id., at pp. 169-177.
13 Exh. „1,‰ Folder of Exhibits.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 9 of 21 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 10 of 21

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM

19 Id., at p. 227. (1996).

20 Supra note 1. 24 Astorga v. People, G.R. No. 154130, August 20, 2004, 437 SCRA
21 Rollo, p. 230. 152, 155.
22 Id., at pp. 239-270. 25 Supra note 23.
26 De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, id., at p. 191; p. 180.
51 27 Supra note 24.

52
possess the gun through the Memorandum Receipt issued
by his superiors.
After considering anew ValerosoÊs arguments through in Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Amante,28
his Letter-Appeal, together with the OSGÊs position by virtue of the January 13, 2004 En Banc Resolution, the
recommending his acquittal, and keeping in mind that Court authorized the Special First Division to suspend the
substantial rights must ultimately reign supreme over Rules, so as to allow it to consider and resolve respondentÊs
technicalities, this Court is swayed to reconsider.23 second motion for reconsideration after the motion was
The Letter-Appeal is actually in the nature of a second heard on oral arguments. After a re-examination of the
motion for reconsideration. While a second motion for merits of the case, we granted the second motion for
reconsideration is, as a general rule, a prohibited pleading, reconsideration and set aside our earlier decision.
it is within the sound discretion of the Court to admit the Clearly, suspension of the rules of procedure, to pave the
same, provided it is filed with prior leave whenever way for the re-examination of the findings of fact and
substantive justice may be better served thereby.24 conclusions of law earlier made, is not without basis.
This is not the first time that this Court is suspending We would like to stress that rules of procedure are
its own rules or excepting a particular case from the merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.
operation of the rules. In De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan,25 They are conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the
despite the denial of De GuzmanÊs motion for courts in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves
reconsideration, we still entertained his Omnibus Motion, to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion.
which was actually a second motion for reconsideration. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they
Eventually, we reconsidered our earlier decision and ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that, on
remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan for reception and the balance, technicalities take a backseat to substantive
appreciation of petitionerÊs evidence. In that case, we said rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the
that if we would not compassionately bend backwards and application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than
flex technicalities, petitioner would surely experience the to promote justice, it would always be within our power to
disgrace and misery of incarceration for a crime which he suspend the rules or except a particular case from its
might not have committed after all.26 Also in Astorga v. operation.29
People,27 on a second motion for reconsideration, we set Now on the substantive aspect.
aside our earlier decision, re-examined the records of the The Court notes that the version of the prosecution, as
case, then finally acquitted Benito Astorga of the crime of to where Valeroso was arrested, is different from the
Arbitrary Detention on the ground of reasonable doubt. version of the defense. The prosecution claims that
And 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
23 See De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, 326 Phil. 182; 256 SCRA 171 firearm and ammunition. The defense, on the other hand,

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 11 of 21 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 12 of 21

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM

insists that he was arrested inside searches and seizures, the Constitution succinctly declares
in Article III, Section 3(2), that „any evidence obtained in
_______________ viola-

28 G.R. Nos. 112526 and 118838, March 16, 2005, 453 SCRA 432.
_______________
29 Astorga v. People, supra note 24, at pp. 155-156.
30 People v. Sevilla, 394 Phil. 125, 139; 339 SCRA 625, 635 (2000).
53
54

the boarding house of his children. After serving the

warrant of arrest (allegedly for kidnapping with ransom), tion of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in
some of the police officers searched the boarding house and evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.‰31
forcibly opened a cabinet where they discovered the subject The above proscription is not, however, absolute. The
firearm. following are the well-recognized instances where searches
After a thorough re-examination of the records and and seizures are allowed even without a valid warrant:
consideration of the joint appeal for acquittal by Valeroso
„1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
and the OSG, we find that we must give more credence to
2. [Seizure] of evidence in „plain view.‰ The elements are:
the version of the defense.
a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in
ValerosoÊs appeal for acquittal focuses on his
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
constitutional right against unreasonable search and
duties; b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
seizure alleged to have been violated by the arresting police
who have the right to be where they are; c) the evidence must be
officers; and if so, would render the confiscated firearm and
immediately apparent; and d) „plain view‰ justified mere seizure of
ammunition inadmissible in evidence against him.
evidence without further search;
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
secured by Section 2, Article III of the Constitution which
government, the vehicleÊs inherent mobility reduces expectation of
states:
privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
„SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, 4. Consented warrantless search;
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon 5. Customs search;
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after 6. Stop and Frisk;
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.32
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to 8. Search of vessels and aircraft; [and]
be searched and the persons or things to be seized.‰ 9. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the
enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations.‰33
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 31 Id.
individual.30 32 People v. Tudtud, G.R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003, 412 SCRA
To underscore the significance the law attaches to the 142, 153-154; Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 263, 277; 373 SCRA
fundamental right of an individual against unreasonable 221, 232 (2002); People v. Sevilla, supra note 30, at pp. 139-140; p. 636

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 13 of 21 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 14 of 21

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM

People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 879-880; 288 SCRA 626, 638 (1998). 34 Caballes v. Court of Appeals, supra note 32, at p. 278; p. 232.
33 Nachura, Antonio Eduardo B., Outline Reviewer in Political Law, 35 322 Phil. 226; 252 SCRA 213 (1996).
2009, pp. 139-142. 36 413 Phil 249; 360 SCRA 690 (2001).
37 443 Phil. 669; 395 SCRA 553 (2003).
55
56

In the exceptional instances where a warrant is not

necessary to effect a valid search or seizure, what entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure and seize any evidence on the arresteeÊs person in order to
is purely a judicial question, determinable from the prevent its concealment or destruction.38
uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty
purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a
probable cause, the manner in which the search and warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect,
seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the but also in the permissible area within the latterÊs reach.39
character of the articles procured.34 Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of
In light of the enumerated exceptions, and applying the evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of
test of reasonableness laid down above, is the warrantless the one arrested or within the area of his immediate
search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid? control.40 The phrase „within the area of his immediate
We answer in the negative. control‰ means the area from within which he might gain
For one, the warrantless search could not be justified as possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.41 A gun on
an incident to a lawful arrest. Searches and seizures a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be
incident to lawful arrests are governed by Section 13, Rule as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the
126 of the Rules of Court, which reads: clothing of the person arrested.42
In the present case, Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a
„SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest.·A person lawfully
warrant of arrest allegedly for kidnapping with ransom. At
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which
that time, Valeroso was sleeping inside the boarding house
may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an
of his children. He was awakened by the arresting officers
offense without a search warrant.‰
who were heavily armed. They pulled him out of the room,
We would like to stress that the scope of the warrantless placed him beside the faucet outside the room, tied his
search is not without limitations. In People v. Leangsiri,35 hands, and then put him under the care of Disuanco.43 The
People v. Cubcubin, Jr.,36 and People v. Estella,37 we had other police officers remained inside the room and
the occasion to lay down the parameters of a valid ransacked the locked cabinet44 where they found the
warrantless search and seizure as an incident to a lawful subject firearm and ammuni-
arrest.
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the _______________
arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to
38 People v. Estella, id., at p. 685; p. 566.
remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to
39 People v. Cueno, 359 Phil. 151, 163; 298 SCRA 621, 632 (1998).
resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officerÊs
40 People v. Cubcubin, Jr., supra note 36, at p. 271; p. 708; see People
safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself
v. Leangsiri, supra note 35.
frustrated. In addition, it is
41 People v. Estella, supra note 37, at p. 685; p. 566.
42 Id.
_______________

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 15 of 21 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 16 of 21

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM

43 TSN, February 19, 1997, pp. 21-25. 48 Id., at p. 686; p. 567.

44 TSN, March 17, 1997, p. 27.
58
57

Nor can the warrantless search in this case be justified

tion.45 With such discovery, Valeroso was charged with under the „plain view doctrine.‰
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The „plain view doctrine‰ may not be used to launch
From the foregoing narration of facts, we can readily unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures or to
conclude that the arresting officers served the warrant of extend a general exploratory search made solely to find
arrest without any resistance from Valeroso. They placed evidence of defendantÊs guilt. The doctrine is usually
him immediately under their control by pulling him out of applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence
the bed, and bringing him out of the room with his hands against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes
tied. To be sure, the cabinet which, according to Valeroso, across an incriminating object.49
was locked, could no longer be considered as an „area As enunciated in People v. Cubcubin, Jr.50 and People v.
within his immediate control‰ because there was no way for Leangsiri:51
him to take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that
„What the „plain view‰ cases have in common is that the police
could be used against him.
officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in
The arresting officers would have been justified in
the course of which[,] he came inadvertently across a piece of
searching the person of Valeroso, as well as the tables or
evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to
drawers in front of him, for any concealed weapon that
supplement the prior justification·whether it be a warrant for
might be used against the former. But under the
another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some
circumstances obtaining, there was no comparable
other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search
justification to search through all the desk drawers and
directed against the accused·and permits the warrantless seizure.
cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas in that room
Of course, the extension of the original justification is legitimate
itself.46
only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have
It is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception
evidence before them; the „plain view‰ doctrine may not be used to
(warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to
extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until
protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the
something incriminating at last emerges.‰52
person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed
weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence Indeed, the police officers were inside the boarding
within reach. The exception, therefore, should not be house of ValerosoÊs children, because they were supposed to
strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose.47 In serve a warrant of arrest issued against Valeroso. In other
the case before us, search was made in the locked cabinet words, the police officers had a prior justification for the
which cannot be said to have been within ValerosoÊs intrusion. Consequently, any evidence that they would
immediate control. Thus, the search exceeded the bounds of inadvertently dis-
what may be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest.48

_______________
_______________
49 People v. Cubcubin, Jr., supra note 40, at p. 271; p. 708; People v.
45 Id., at p. 3.
Leangsiri, supra note 35, at p. 249; p. 231.
46 People v. Estella, supra note 37, at p. 685; p. 566.
50 Supra note 40.
47 Id.
51 Supra note 35.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 17 of 21 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 18 of 21

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM

52 People v. Cubcubin, Jr., supra note 36, at p. 272; p. 709; People v. 54 People v. Cubcubin, Jr., supra note 36, at pp. 270-271; pp. 707-708.
Leangsiri, supra note 35, at pp. 249-250; p. 231. 55 People v. Tudtud, supra note 32, at p. 168.

59 60

cover may be used against Valeroso. However, in this case, him.56 All told, the guilt of Valeroso was not proven beyond
the police officers did not just accidentally discover the reasonable doubt measured by the required moral certainty
subject firearm and ammunition; they actually searched for for conviction. The evidence presented by the prosecution
evidence against Valeroso. was not enough to overcome the presumption of innocence
Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of as constitutionally ordained. Indeed, it would be better to
ValerosoÊs right against unreasonable search and seizure. set free ten men who might probably be guilty of the crime
Consequently, the evidence obtained in violation of said charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he
right is inadmissible in evidence against him. did not commit.57
Unreasonable searches and seizures are the menace With the foregoing disquisition, there is no more need to
against which the constitutional guarantees afford full discuss the other issues raised by Valeroso.
protection. While the power to search and seize may at One final note. The Court values liberty and will always
times be necessary for public welfare, still it may be insist on the observance of basic constitutional rights as a
exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative
constitutional rights of the citizens, for no enforcement of and prosecutory powers of the government.58
any statute is of sufficient importance to justify WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the February
indifference to the basic principles of government. Those 22, 2008 Decision and June 30, 2008 Resolution are
who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. Sr. Insp. Jerry
disregarding the rights of an individual in the name of Valeroso is hereby ACQUITTED of illegal possession of
order. Order is too high a price to pay for the loss of firearm and ammunition.
liberty.53 SO ORDERED.
Because a warrantless search is in derogation of a
constitutional right, peace officers who conduct it cannot Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario,
invoke regularity in the performance of official functions.54 Velasco, Jr. and Peralta, JJ., concur.
The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of constitutional
Judgment and resolution reconsidered and set aside, Sr.
government. If people are stripped naked of their rights as
Insp. Jerry Valeroso acquitted of illegal possession of
human beings, democracy cannot survive and government
firearm and ammunition.
becomes meaningless. This explains why the Bill of Rights,
contained as it is in Article III of the Constitution, occupies Notes.·Where the accused were lawfully arrested in
a position of primacy in the fundamental law way above Room 504 of a hotel and a warrantless search was
the articles on governmental power.55 conducted in Room 413, the search is illegal and the
Without the illegally seized firearm, ValerosoÊs evidence obtained
conviction cannot stand. There is simply no sufficient
evidence to convict
_______________

_______________ 56 People v. Sarap, 447 Phil. 642, 652; 399 SCRA 503, 511 (2003).
57 Id., at pp. 652-653; p. 512.
53 People v. Aruta, supra note 32, at p. 895; p. 653.
58 People v. Januario, 335 Phil. 268, 304; 267 SCRA 608, 643 (1997).

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 19 of 21 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 20 of 21

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 598 04/03/2018, 11*51 AM

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef12c79346d1f5b9003600fb002c009e/p/ATL900/?username=Guest Page 21 of 21