PEOPLE V.

MALACAT
FACTS:
Rodolfo Yu and others allegedly received a report that there would be a grenade explosion
somewhere the vicinity of Plaza Miranda, so they conducted a foot patrol. They chanced upon the
accused and other men, and later on apprehended them. Thereafter, they found a fragmentation
grenade tucked inside petitioner’s front waist line, so he and his companion were brought to the
police station. The grenade was given to Ramilo for examination. They agreed to an uncounselled
confession. The fiscal admitted that he took petitioner’s confession knowing it was inadmissible in
evidence. Petitioner claims differently, stating that he went to Plaza Miranda to catch some fresh air,
where he was mauled and hit with benches and guns.
Malacat was charged with violating Section 3 of P.D. 1866. The RTC also ruled that the
warrantless search and seizure of petitioner was akin to a stop and frisk.

ISSUES:
1. WON the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were sufficient to establish Malacat’s guilt.
2. WON Malacat’s uncounselled confession, assuming he did have a grenade with him, is
admissible in evidence.
3. WON there was a valid arrest and search on Malacat.

RULING:
1. No. There is serious doubt around the story of Yu. The commander, to whom he turned over
the grenade, was not presented to corroborate his testimony. There was also no evidence that
what Ramilo received was the very same grenade seized from petitioner. Yu was not made to
identify the grenade examined by Ramilo. The law enforcement authorities failed to safeguard
and preserve the chain of evidence so crucial in cases such as these.
2. No. Such admission was taken in palpable violation of Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the
Constitution. No lawyer was present. Even if petitioner consented to the investigation and
waived his rights to remain silent and to counsel, the waiver was invalid as it was not in writing,
neither was it executed in the presence of counsel.
3. No. The trial court’s claim that the arrest is akin to a stop and frisk is not correct. There is doubt
as to Yu’s claim that petitioner was a member of the group which attempted to bomb Plaza
Miranda two days earlier. There was no police report or record to support said claim and
neither was it corroborated by any other police officer who allegedly chased that group. There
was nothing in petitioner’s behavior or conduct which could have reasonably elicited even
mere suspicion. Petitioner and his companions were merely standing at the corner and were
not creating any commotion or trouble. Lastly, there was at all no round to believe that
petitioner was armed with a deadly weapon. From all the indications as to the distance
between Yu and petitioner, any telltale bulge could not have been visible to Yu.