A person who I knew is got involve in a deep shit.

I guess its what you say on the wrong time and

the wrong place. He was on an area and did not lock his car (he always does that apparently)
After gunshots police came to the area and most of the people in there was detained. The thing
is.... its like it was planned all along. After inspecting the car there was a fully loaded gun inside.
But the person i knew knows that he hasn't touched a gun for ages nor owns one. Police claims
that the initial bail was 27 thousand... somehow they knew that they already got the 27
thousand.. it was then raised to 60 thousand... after ridiculous effort to find the money(they are
not rich trust me) they got it.. Then when they got to the station the bail was doubled. It's like
they are really pressing he is a suspect for some case in the area. But since they can't prove that
it is really his gun(no fingerprint on the gun). Do they have the right to detain him? Right now
they are having trouble of finding a private lawyer as it would cost.. I am also sure that he does
not do any wrong. Can anyone give me their opinions or thoughts? I want to help this person
really bad..
Lawyer here. This is a classic case of hulidap. Find a lawyer immediately, or go to the nearest
Public Attorneys Office (usually they're located inside the local Hall of Justice). Private or public
lawyer walang pinagkaiba yan.

IMPORTANT: Only prosecutors and, in applicable cases, courts have the the right to set bail, not
the police. The DOJ has a standard bail bond guide where the amount depends on the offense
committed and the penalty. Take note that the purpose of bail is to guarantee the attendance of
the defendant during the whole proceedings of the trial. It is returned after the trial, unless the
defendant jumped bail or failed to appear in one of the scheduled hearings, in which case it is
forfeited in favor of the court. Bail is not a payment for temporary liberty. Based on your story,
the police is just extorting money from your friend. Bail is paid to the court, not the police

Now things get tricky and confusing. I'll try to EIL5 the possible implications and scenarios.

First, the legality of the search.

The general rule is that searches are not allowed without a search
warrant. This is a constitutional right. There are many exceptions,
however. One of the exceptions would be a warrantless search with the
consent of the accused. Ask your friend if he gave his consent before they
searched the vehicle (never ever do this). If yes, then no question the
search is valid.

If no consent was given, then another exception to unconstitutional

warrantless searches may apply, which is search of a moving vehicle. No
search warrant is needed to search a car because of its nature of
mobility. It would be impractical, even useless, to obtain a search
warrant for a car since it may go away anytime. However, for this
exception to apply, the police must have a probable cause based on their
personal knowledge or a well founded belief that a contraband or a tool
of a crime is inside the vehicle. There must be a good suspicion on the
part of the police.

In your friend's case, the police will claim that since there was a shooting
in the area, they have the right to be there and that they have a well-
founded belief or a probable cause that a gun was inside the car. The
following questions should be then asked of the police (and your friend
too):
1.What is the basis of the probable cause that a gun is inside the car?
2.Are there witnesses when the search was made?
3.Where in the car did they find the gun?

In the first question, the police has the burden to prove the existence of
probable cause on why they opened the car. Absent a justifiable reason,
they have no right to conduct the search without a warrant.

In the second question, a search, with or without a warrant, must be

conducted in the presence of the owner or at least 2 witnesses who are
living in the area. Ask your friend if the search was conducted in his
presence or not.

In the third question, the police may claim that they found it where it
may be easily seen inside the car, like on top of the dashboard or on the
seat. This is leads us to another exception to the constitutional
prohibition against warrantless searches. Under the plain view doctrine,
an object may be seized without a warrant if:
1.The police have the right to be in the area;
2.They found the object inadvertently (accidental without an active
search; iba ang hinahanap pero may nahanap na iba) in plain view;
3.The illegality of the object is apparent (isang tingin lang alam na agad
na iligal yung bagay)

Those checkpoints you see every now and then especially during election
gun ban period? That's the plain view doctrine in action. No need for a
search warrant to be obtained as long as searches are not intrusive and
are limited to what can be seen immediately.

Let's go back to the requirements of the doctrine and apply your friend's
case:

1. The police have a right to be in the area: why yes they do because
there was a "shooting incident".

2. They found the gun inadvertently: they may have been looking at
random cars parked in the area, totally legal as long as it is limited to
peeking inside the windows.

3. The illegality of the object is readily apparent: Since there was a

"shooting incident" that just occurred, the police are justified to presume
that the gun was used in the crime and ask your friend if he has a license
to carry.

(This is based on a Supreme Court decision of Abelita v. Doria. In that

case, a shooting incident happened and the accused was the prime
suspect so the police are justified to presume that the gun which was
seen inside the defendant's vehicle was used in the shooting thus making
it apparently illegal (sounds familiar, right?) In your friend's case I would
argue in his defense that other than the fact that there was a shooting,
he was not a prime suspect so the police have no right to presume that
the gun was used in the shooting. A gun is not illegal as it is, unless there
is a prevailing gun ban. The third requisite may be deemed absent.
Imposible naman na sa isang tingin pa lang alam na ng pulis na walang
lisensya yung baril.)

These are the expected defenses that the police will invoke in defending
their actions. They also enjoy the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duties of officers. Your friend has the burden to prove
any irregularity in the search. It is going to be quite an uphill climb. It's
hard to assume on the possible defenses of your friend since so many
questions need to be answered. Your lawyer should take care of that.
Let's tackle the legality of your friend's arrest and detention.

Since he was allegedly found in illegal possession of a firearm, the police

has the right to arrest him without a warrant since he was "caught in the
act" or in flagrante delicto. This is a recognized exception to the
constitutional prohibition against warrantless arrests.

Now that he was arrested without a warrant, an inquest should be made

by the prosecutor, who determines whether or not the warrantless
arrest was legal and if there is probable cause for his arrest. If the arrest
has no basis then the accused must be set free, otherwise detention
must continue until bail is set by the court or an information is filed by
the prosecutor to the court.

Important questions:

What kind of gun was "found" in your friend's possession? The caliber of
the gun will determine the possible penalty in case of conviction. That
possible/imposable penalty, in return, will determine the time limit for
which a charge/information must be filed with the court: 12 or 24 or 36
hours depending the gravity of the offense.

How many hours has he been in detention? If more than 36 hours

already and no information was filed by the prosecutor to the court then
he must be freed even without bail. Otherwise the police or prosecutor
may be held liable for Delay in the Delivery of Prisoners under Article 125
of the Revised Penal Code.

Here's the law concerning the illegal possession of firearms. I also

recommend filing an administrative case against the police officers with
the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM).
Sorry if some parts are confusing. It's already 1:00 AM and my brain is
not in its best condition. I tried to give my best answer based on the
information given. Feel free to ask.
NOTE:
Didn't he take a paraffin test to confirm if he shot the gun or not? And if
the gun is really "fully loaded" then he can argue that he's not the one
who made the gunshots since the gun in question is "fully loaded". That
is unless they found the bullet casings.