G.R. No.
258060, August 16, 2023 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDWARD
DALISAY Y BAGRO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT
The ACCUSED-APPELLANT was charged with two (2) Criminal Cases:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19010
violation of Section 28(a) and (e), Article V in relation to Section 3(dd),
subparagraph 1(ii), Article I of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10591,3 otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act"
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19011
Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,4 otherwise known as the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
FACTS
On July 22, 2014, at around 8:45 in the evening that alias Edu/Puwit,
who has long been a subject of police surveillance for his involvement in
the illegal drug trade, was [at] the corner leading to the elementary school
in said barangay, carrying a gun. PO2 Asilo relayed the information to PO3
Alexander Narvacan Olea (PO3 Olea) and PO3 Jonas Manook Guarda
(PO3 Guarda) and together, they planned on how to arrest alias Edu/Puwit.
They spotted alias Edu/Puwit sitting on a parked black motorcycle,
showing something to another man. PO2 Asilo forthwith confiscated the
gun from the possession of the latter. Upon inquiry whether the gun was
covered by a valid license, alias Edu/Puwit was not able to present any
documents, so PO2 Asilo placed him under arrest and apprised him of his
constitutional rights. PO2 Asilo frisked him to determine if he was in
possession of other deadly weapons or contraband. He found[,] in
[accused-appellant's] right pocket[,] one (1) transparent plastic sachet
containing suspected [shabu]. They brought him to the barangay hall. From
the place where they arrested [accused-appellant] until their arrival at the
said barangay hall, PO2 Asilo kept the evidence in his pocket.
At the said barangay hall, they caused the recording of the arrest of the
suspect in the barangay blotter. At the station, the arrival of the team was
recorded in the police blotter.
Accused-appellant denied the accusations against him.
He recounted that on July 22, 2014, at around 7:00 p.m., he was buying
candles from a store when three armed men wearing white plastic masks
on board three motorcycles grabbed him, asking him if he was "Joey."
Accused-appellant said that he was not Joey and showed the men his
driver's license to prove it, but the men kept insisting he was "Joey."
The men then forcibly boarded accused-appellant inside a van, where
accused-appellant asked the men if they have evidence against him.
Subsequently, the men brought accused-appellant to a police station,
where they showed him the pieces of evidence against him.
RULING OF THE RTC
The RTC concluded that the arrest of accused-appellant was valid, even
without a warrant, due to the fact that he was apprehended in flagrante
delicto while holding a firearm without a license. In convicting accused-
appellant for the crime of illegal possession of drugs under Section 11 of
R.A. 9165, the RTC found that all elements were present. First, accused-
appellant was apprehended while in flagrante delicto, openly possessing
the illegal substance. Second, although the police officers failed to comply
strictly with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, the court was satisfied that the
integrity of the drugs was preserved. Aggrieved, accused-appellant
appealed the Joint Decision to the CA.
RULING OF THE CA
The CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction
The CA upheld the legality of the warrantless arrest, affirming that PO2
Asilo had probable cause to believe that accused-appellant was carrying an
unlicensed weapon. The CA likewise upheld the findings of the RTC that
the elements for illegal possession of firearms and illegal possession of
dangerous drugs were adequately proven.
ISSUE
Whether accused-appellant was validly arrested, and concomitant to
that, whether there was a valid search against accused-appellant;
RULING OF THE COURT
The police successfully carried out a valid warrantless search upon
accused-appellant. As a result of this search, accused-appellant was found
to be illegally in possession of a firearm and, when frisked, was also in
illegal possession of drugs.
The Court therefore upholds accused-appellant's conviction for illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition. However, as to the charge for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, accused-appellant should be acquitted
because of the prosecution's failure to prove the integrity of the drugs
seized from accused-appellant.
Yet, the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and
seizures admits of certain exceptions. These exceptions are: (1)
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section
12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2)
seizure of evidence in plain view; (3) search of moving vehicles; (4)
consented warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6) stop-and-frisk
situations (Terry search); and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances.
The search conducted can be categorized as a stop-and-frisk
encounter. A stop-and-frisk search was defined as "the act of a police
officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him [or her], and pat him
[or her] for weapon(s) or contraband." To determine whether a stop-and-
frisk warrantless search is valid, the test is whether "a reasonably prudent
man [or woman], in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief
that his [or her] safety or that of others was in danger. "In turn, "in
determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances,
due weight must be given not to his [or her] inchoate and unparticularized
suspicion or 'hunch,' but to the specific reasonable inferences which he [or
she] is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his [or her] experience.
For a valid [stop-and-frisk] search, this Court instructed in Manibog v.
People that the arresting officer should have personally observed at least
two (2) or more suspicious circumstances. A reasonable inference must be
deduced from the totality of circumstances to justify further investigation by
the arresting officer.
For an arrest effected under Section 5(a), Rule 113 to be valid, it is
required that: (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he or she has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and, (b) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
It is evident that the arrest made aligns with the provisions of Section
5(a) of Rule 113. The available evidence supports the conclusion that
accused-appellant was subjected to a lawful stop-and-frisk procedure.
During this procedure, it was discovered that accused-appellant was in
possession of an unregistered firearm, leading to his subsequent arrest.
A search incidental to a lawful arrest necessitates that a lawful arrest
must precede the search; "the process cannot be reversed."38 For there to
be a lawful arrest, law enforcers must be fortified with a valid warrant, or at
the very least, any of the instances when a valid warrantless arrest may be
effected is present.
1) In Criminal Case No. 19010, EDWARD DALISAY y BAGRO is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
2) In Criminal Case No. 19011, EDWARD DALISAY y
BAGRO is ACQUITTED
