Valeroso vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No.

164815

Retroactive Effect of Laws on Penal Character

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court Ruling

G.R. No. 164815 September 3, 2009

Sr. Insp. Jerry C. Valeroso, Petitioner

vs.

Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, Respondent

FACTS:

On July 10, 1996, a duly issued warrant of arrest to the petitioner in a case of kidnapping for ransom
was released. Valeroso was found and arrested and was bodily searched and after which a firearm
with live ammunition was found tucked in his waist. The subject firearm was later confirmed and
revealed to have not been issued to the petitioner but to another person.

The defense on the other hand claimed that Valeroso was arrested and searched (without a search
warrant) in the boarding house of his children. They pointed their guns on him and tied him and
pulled him out of the room as the raiding team went back inside, searched and ransacked the room.
Later, an operative came out of the room exclaiming that he has found a gun inside. The firearm
according to the petitioner was issued to Jerry Valeroso by virtue of a Memorandum Receipt.

Jerry C. Valeroso was then charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for illegally
possessing a revolver bearing serial number 52315 without securing the necessary license/permit.
The petitioner through a letter of appeal asked the court to be reconsidered.

ISSUE/S:

Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition has merit and valid

HELD/DECISION:

1. Some valid grounds for a warrantless search and seizure are as follows: A person who was
arrested lawfully may be searched so that the officer may remove any weapons that the
accused may be used to resist arrest. This is to protect the welfare of the officers and to make
sure that the arrest will happen. This is also to find evidence that otherwise can be destroyed by
the accused. Further, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or any weapons either on the
person or within the area of his immediate control. Based on the statement of the petitioner,
the petitioner did not resist arrest, He was tied and placed outside the room where the gun was
found; therefore the room where the gun was found could not be “in his immediate control.”
Incidental searches without a warrant states that officers are permitted to seize any weapon
that they can inadvertently found during the arrest under the “plain view doctrine.” However,
the firearm was not found accidentally but was actually searched and therefore not incidental.
Clearly, the search was illegal, a violation of Veloroso’s right against unreasonable search and
seizure. Therefore, the evidence obtained is inadmissible to court and cannot be used against
him.