COURT OF APPEALS [269 SCRA 402 (1997)]
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA. Facts: Padilla figured in a hit and run accident in Oct 26, 1992. He was later on apprehended with the help pf a civilian witness. Upon arrest following high powered firearms were found in his possession: 1. .357 caliber revolver with 6 live ammunition 2. M-16 Baby Armalite magazine with ammo 3. .380 pietro beretta with 8 ammo 4. 6 live double action ammo of .38 caliber revolver Padilla claimed papers of guns were at home. His arrest for hit and run incident modified to include grounds of Illegal Possession of firearms. He had no papers. On Dec. 3, 1994, Padilla was found guilty of Illegal Possession of Firearms under PD 1866 by the RTC of Angeles City. He was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty from 17 years. 4 months, 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 21 years of reclusion perpetua as maximum. The Court of Appeals confirmed decision and cancelled bailbond. RTC of Angeles City was directed to issue order of arrest. Motion for reconsideration was denied by Court of Appeals. Padilla filed lots of other petitions and all of a sudden, the Solicitor General made a complete turnaround and filed “Manifestation in Lieu of Comment” praying for acquittal (nabayaran siguro). Issues: 1. WARRANTLESS ARREST: WON his was illegal and consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule No. Anent the first defense, petitioner questions the legality of his arrest. There is no dispute that no warrant was issued for the arrest of petitioner, but that per se did not make his apprehension at the Abacan Bridge illegal. Warrantless arrests are sanctioned in Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure—a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person (a) when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. When caught in flagrante delicto with possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammo, petitioner’s warrantless arrest was proper since he was actually committing another offence in the presence of all those officers. There was no supervening event or a considerable lapse of time between the hit and run and the actual apprehension. Because arrest was legal, the pieces of evidence are admissible. Instances when warrantless search and seizure of property is valid:

3. viz. (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess. The court begs to disagree. the M-16 and any short firearms higher than 0. In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm. in accordance with settled jurisprudence. Lastly. PENALTY: WON penalty for simple illegal possession constitutes excessive and cruel punishment proscribed by the 1987 Constitution Anent his third defense. Furthermore. under a Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt. petitioner faults respondent court “in applying P. we lift from respondent court’s incisive observation. defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea. 2. 1866 in a democratic ambience (sic) and a non-subversive context” and adds that respondent court should have applied instead the previous laws on illegal possession of firearms . Indeed.38 caliber cannot be licensed to a civilian. two requisites must be established. petitioner’s purported Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt are inferior in the face of the more formidable evidence for the prosecution as our meticulous review of the records reveals that the Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt were mere afterthoughts contrived and issued under suspicious circumstances. identified and offered in evidence during trial. to carry the subject firearms No. On this score.” elements of which are (a) prior valid intrusion based on valid warrantless arrest in which police are legally present in pursuit of official duties. Petitioner would nonetheless insist on the illegality of his arrest by arguing that the policemen who actually arrested him were not at the scene of the hit and run. the same was convincingly proven by the prosecution. The first element is beyond dispute as the subject firearms and ammunitions were seized from petitioner’s possession via a valid warrantless search. It is a reality that curbing lawlessness gains more success when law enforcers function in collaboration with private citizens. 1988 Memorandum of the Secretary of Defense. and (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search (People v. (b) evidence inadvertedly discovered by police who had the right to be there. As to the second element. any objection.? Seizure of evidence in “plain view. the Memorandum Receipt is also unsupported by a certification as required by the March 5. (c) evidence immediately apparent. Rule 126 of Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence where the test of incidental search (not excluded by exclusionary rule) is that item to be searched must be within arrestee’s custody or area of immediate control and search contemporaneous with arrest. Petitioner is not in the Plantilla of Non-Uniform personnel or in list of Civilian Agents of Employees of the PNP. which would justify issuance of mission order (as stated in PD 1866).: (1) the existence of the subject firearm and. Furthermore.D. LICENSE TO CARRY: WON the petitioner is authorized. Evaristo: objects whose possession are prohibited by law inadvertedly found in plain view are subject to seizure even without a warrant) ? Search of moving vehicle ? Warrantless search incidental to lawful arrest recognized under section 12.

efficacy or morality of laws. That question falls exclusively within the province of Congress which enacts them and the Chief Executive who approves or vetoes them. Moreover. He stresses that the penalty of 17 years and 4 months to 21 years for simple illegal possession of firearm is cruel and excessive in contravention of the Constitution. respondent court can not be faulted for applying P. it is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law as it stands. not a doubtful and argumentative implication.D. we reiterate. Indeed. The only function of the courts. the decision of the CA sustaining petitioner’s conviction by the lower court of the crime of simple illegal possession of firearms & ammunitions is AFFIRMED EXCEPT that petitioner’s indeterminate penalty is MODIFIED to “10 yrs & 1 day. the Court declared that “the pertinent laws on illegal possession of firearms [are not] contrary to any provision of the Constitution…” Appellant’s grievances on the wisdom of the prescribed penalty should not be addressed to us. we note. The burden of proving the invalidity of the statute in question lies with the appellant which burden. Equally lacking in merit is appellant’s allegation that the penalty for simple illegal possession is unconstitutional. there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. To justify nullification of the law. was not convincingly discharged. . And until its repeal.D. the constitutionality of P. In fact. ranges from reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua contrary to appellant’s erroneous averment. The penalty for simple possession of firearm. is to interpret and apply the laws Held: WHEREFORE. as maximum. The severity of a penalty does not ipso facto make the same cruel and excessive. Courts are not concerned with the wisdom. The trial court and the respondent court are bound to apply the governing law at the time of appellant’s commission of the offense for it is a rule that laws are repealed only by subsequent ones. as in this case. premises considered. The contentions do not merit serious consideration. 8 months & 1 day. every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. 1866 has been upheld twice by this Court. as min. Just recently.since the reason for the penalty imposed under P. to 18 yrs. it should be stressed. 1866 which abrogated the previous statutes adverted to by petitioner. 1866 no longer exists.D.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful