Judge Abelita III vs.

Doria and Ramirez

GR No. 107672

Facts:

Petitioner (Judge Abelita) filed a complaint for damages under Art. 32(4) and (9) of the Civil
Code against Respondents (Doria and Ramirez). Petitioner alleged that he and his wife was
on their home when the respondents accompanied by 10 unidentified police
officers,requested them to proceed to the PNP headquarters. Petitioner alleged that he
would proceed to to the PNP HQ after he had brought his wife home. Petitoner alleged that
when she parked his car in front of their house, SPO3 Ramirez grabbed him and took his car
keys, bared into the vehicle and conducted as search without a warrant. The search resulted
to the seizure of a licensed shotgun and a unlicensed .45 caliber pistol allegedly found inside
the vehicle.

However, the respondent has a different version of the case. Doria alleged that they
received a telephone call from a relative of Rosa Sia about a shooting incident. He
dispatched a team headed by Ramirez to investigate the incident. Ramirez reported that a
certain William Sia is wounded while Petitioner and his wife just left the place of the incident.
Doria looked for the petitioner and when he found him, he informed him about the incident,
he requested Petitioner to go with him in the PNP HQ but the petitioner suddenly sped up
his vehicle and proceeded to his residence, they caught up with petitioner as he was about
to run towards his house. The police offices saw a gun in the form seat and a shotgun at the
back. They confiscated the firearms and charged Petitioner for illegal possession of firearms
and frustrated murder and an administrative case.

Issue:

Whether or not the arrest and seizure was valid.

Whether or not the Respondents are liable for damages.

Whether the findings in the administrative case against petitioner is conclusive in this case.

Ruling:

Yes, the seizure was valid under plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an
officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may
be presented as evidence. The requisites of plain view are:

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 evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
3. it is immediately apparent to the police officers that the firearm may be an evidence
of a crime.
Hence, they were justified in seizing the firearms.

No, the court did not agree that petitioner was framed-up and that the respondents were
presumed to be performing their duties in accordance with law. They should not be held
liable for damages.

While the present case and the administrative case are based on the same essential facts
and circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata will not apply. The requisites of res judicata
are:

1. the former judgment must be final;

2. it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after a
consideration of the evidence or stipulation submitted by the parties at the trial of
the case;
3. it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties;
4. there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of the parties, of
subject matter, and cause of action; this requisite is satisfied f the two actions are
substantially between the same parties.

A administrative case deals with the administrative liability which may be incurred by the
respondent for the commission of the acts complained of. This case deals with the civil
liability for damages of the police officers. There is no identity of causes of action in the
cases. While identity of causes of action is not required in the application of res judicata in
the concept of conclusiveness of judgment, it is required that there must always be identity
of parties in the first and second cases. There is no identity of parties since the
administrative case was filed by Bejamin Sia Lao against petitioner and Benjamin is not a
party to this case.