PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

SANTIAGO EVARISTO and NOLI CARILLO, accused-appellants.

FACTS:

The Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses SANTIAGO EVARISTO AND NOLI CARILLO of the crime of
VIOLATION of P.D. 1866.

The police were on routine patrol duty. At or about 5:50 in the afternoon, successive bursts of gunfire
were heard in the vicinity. Proceeding to the approximate source of the same, they came upon one
Barequiel Rosillo who was firing a gun into the air.

Seeing the patrol, Rosillo ran to the nearby house of appellant Evaristo prompting the lawmen to pursue
him. Upon approaching the immediate perimeter of the house, specifically a cement pavement or porch
leading to the same, the patrol chanced upon the slightly inebriated appellants, Evaristo and Carillo.
Inquiring as to the whereabouts of Rosillo, the police patrol members were told that he had already
escaped through a window of the house. Sgt. Vallarta immediately observed a noticeable bulge around
the waist of Carillo who, upon being frisked, admitted the same to be a .38 revolver. After ascertaining
that Carillo was neither a member of the military nor had a valid license to possess the said firearm, the
gun was confiscated and Carillo invited for questioning.

As the patrol was still in pursuit of Rosillo, Sgt. Romeroso sought Evaristo's permission to scour through
the house, which was granted. In the sala, he found, not Rosillo, but a number of firearms and
paraphernalia supposedly used in the repair and manufacture of firearms, all of which, thereafter,
became the basis for the present indictment against Evaristo.

ISSUE:

Won the evidence obtained from the seizure is admissible.

HELD:

Yes. First, on the issue of illegal search.

It is to be noted that what the constitutional provisions prohibit are unreasonable searches and seizures.
For a search to be reasonable under the law, there must, as a rule, be a search warrant validly issued by
an appropriate judicial officer. Yet, the rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid
search warrant is not an absolute and inflexible rule, for jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions
to the search warrant requirement. Among these exceptions is the seizure of evidence in plain view.
Thus, it is recognized that objects inadvertently falling in the plain view of an officer who has the right to
be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.
The records in this case show that Sgt. Romerosa was granted permission by the appellant Evaristo to
enter his house. The officer's purpose was to apprehend Rosillo whom he saw had sought refuge therein.
Therefore, it is clear that the search for firearms was not Romerosa's purpose in entering the house,
thereby rendering his discovery of the subject firearms as inadvertent and even accidental.

With respect to the firearms seized from the appellant Carillo, the Court sustains the validly of the
firearm's seizure and admissibility in evidence, based on the rule on authorized warrantless arrests.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

For purposes of the present case, the second circumstance by which a warrantless arrest may be
undertaken is applicable. For, as disclosed by the records, the peace officers, while on patrol, heard
bursts of gunfire and this proceeded to investigate the matter. This incident may well be within the
"offense" envisioned by par. 5 (b) of Rule 113, Rules of Court.

Accused found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.