To be sure, the cabinet which, according to
Valeroso, was locked, could no longer be
considered as an “area within his immediate
control" because there was no way for him to
take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that
could be used against him.
The arresting officers would have been justified
in searching the person of Valeroso, as well as
the tables or drawers in front of him, for any
concealed weapon that might be used against
the former. But under the circumstances
obtaining, there was no comparable justification
to search through all the desk drawers and
cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas
in that room itself. It is worthy to note that the
purpose of the exception (warrantless search as
an incident to a lawful arrest) is to protect the
arresting officer from being harmed by the
person arrested, who might be armed with a
concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter
from destroying evidence within reach.
TATEMENT OF THE CASE: A petition for review
on certiorari involving the decision of the Hon.Court of Appeals which affirmed that of the RTC
of Quezon City in finding the petitioner-accused
Jerry Valeroso liable of illegal possession of
firearm.
FACTS OF THE CASE: Petitioner was charged
with illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition under P.D. 1866 and was found
liable as charged before the RTC of Quezon City.
On July 10, 1996, the Central District Command
served a duly issued warrant of arrest to Sr. Insp.
Jerry Valeroso in a case of kidnapping for
ransom. Valeroso was found and arrested in INP
Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City where he
was about to board a tricycle. He was bodily
searched and after which a firearm with live
ammunition was found tucked in his waist. The
subject firearm was later verified by the
Firearms and Explosive Division at Camp Crame
and was confirmed and revealed to have not
been issued to the petitioner but to another
person. The defense on the other hand
contended that Valeroso was arrested and
searched in the boarding house of his children inNew Era Quezon City. He was aroused from his
slumber when four heavily armed men in civilian
clothes bolted the room. The pointed their guns
on him and pulled him out of the room as the
raiding team went back inside, searched and
ransacked the room. Moments later an operative
came out of the room exclaiming that he has
found a gun inside. Adrian Yuson, an occupant
to the adjacent room testified for the defense.
SPO3 Timbol, Jr. testified that the firearm with
live ammunition was issued to Jerry Valeroso by
virtue of a Memorandum Receipt. The petitioner
was found guilty as charged by the RTC. On
appeal, the appellate court affirmed the same.
Hence this petition. Petitioner raised the issue of
legalilty of the search and the admissibility and
validity of the evidence obtained as the same
was the fruit of the poisonous tree.
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless search
and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid.
RULING: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
the February 22, 2008 Decision and June 30,2008 Resolution are RECONSIDERED and SET
ASIDE. Sr. Insp. Jerry Valeroso is hereby.
ACQUITTED of illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition.
RATIONALE/REASON: From the foregoing
narration of facts, we can readily conclude that
the arresting officers served the warrant of
arrest without any resistance from Valeroso.
The exception, therefore, should not be strained
beyond what is needed to serve its purpose. In
the case before us, search was made in the
locked cabinet which cannot be said to have
been within Valerosos immediate control. Thus,
the search exceeded the bounds of what may be
considered as an incident to a lawful arrest. Nor
can the warrantless search in this case be
justified under the "plain view doctrine." The
"plain view doctrine" may not be used to launch
unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures
or to extend a general exploratory search made
solely to find evidence of defendants guilt. The
doctrine is usually applied where a police officeris not searching for evidence against the
accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes
across an incriminating object. Indeed, the
police officers were inside the boarding house of
Valerosos children, because they were supposed
to serve a warrant of arrest issued against
Valeroso. In other words, the police officers had
a prior justification for the intrusion.
Consequently, any evidence that they would
inadvertently discover may be used against
Valeroso. However, in this case, the police
officers did not just accidentally discover the
subject firearm and ammunition; they actually
searched for evidence against Valeroso. Clearly,
the search made was illegal, a violation of
Valerosos right against unreasonable search
and seizure. Consequently, the evidence
obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible
in evidence against him.Petitioner raised the issue of legalilty of the
search and the admissibility and validity of the
evidence obtained as the same was the fruit of
the poisonous tree.
They placed him immediately under their control
by pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him
out of the room with his hands tied. To be sure,
the cabinet which, according to Valeroso, was
locked, could no longer be considered as an
"area within his immediate control" because
there was no way for him to take any weapon or
to destroy any evidence that could be used
against him.
Consequently, any evidence that they would
inadvertently discover may be used against
Valeroso. However, in this case, the police
officers did not just accidentally discover the
subject firearm and ammunition; they actually
searched for evidence against Valeroso.The petitioner was found guilty as charged by
the RTC. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed
the same. Hence this petition.
Consequently, any evidence that they would
inadvertently discover may be used against
Valeroso. However, in this case, the police
officers did not just accidentally discover the
subject firearm and ammunition; they actually
searched for evidence against Valeroso. Clearly,
the search made was illegal, a violation of
Valerosos right against unreasonable search
and seizure. Consequently, the evidence
obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible
in evidence against him.
FACTS OF THE CASE: Petitioner was charged
with illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition under P.D. 1866 and was foundliable as charged before the RTC of Quezon City.
On July 10, 1996, the Central District Command
served a duly issued warrant of arrest to Sr. Insp.
Jerry Valeroso in a case of kidnapping for
ransom. Valeroso was found and arrested in INP
Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City where he
was about to board a tricycle. He was bodily
searched and after which a firearm with live
ammunition was found tucked in his waist. The
subject firearm was later verified by the
Firearms and Explosive Division at Camp Crame
and was confirmed and revealed to have not
been issued to the petitioner but to another
person. The defense on the other hand
contended that Valeroso was arrested and
searched in the boarding house of his children in
New Era Quezon City. He was aroused from his
slumber when four heavily armed men in civilian
clothes bolted the room. The pointed their guns
on him and pulled him out of the room as the
raiding team went back inside, searched and
ransacked the room. Moments later an operative
came out of the room exclaiming that he has
found a gun inside. Adrian Yuson, an occupantto the adjacent room testified for the defense.
SPO3 Timbol, Jr. testified that the firearm with
live ammunition was issued to Jerry Valeroso by
virtue of a Memorandum Receipt. The petitioner
was found guilty as charged by the RTC. On
appeal, the appellate court affirmed the same.
Hence this petition. Petitioner raised the issue of
legalilty of the search and the admissibility and
validity of the evidence obtained as the same
was the fruit of the poisonous tree.
They placed him immediately under their control
by pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him
out of the room with his hands tied. To be sure,
the cabinet which, according to Valeroso, was
locked, could no longer be considered as an
"area within his immediate control" because
there was no way for him to take any weapon or
to destroy any evidence that could be used
against him.
The arresting officers would have been justified
in searching the person of Valeroso, as well asthe tables or drawers in front of him, for any
concealed weapon that might be used against
the former. But under the circumstances
obtaining, there was no comparable justification
to search through all the desk drawers and
cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas
in that room itself. It is worthy to note that the
purpose of the exception (warrantless search as
an incident to a lawful arrest) is to protect the
arresting officer from being harmed by the
person arrested, who might be armed with a
concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter
from destroying evidence within reach.
TATEMENT OF THE CASE: A petition for review
on certiorari involving the decision of the Hon.
Court of Appeals which affirmed that of the RTC
of Quezon City in finding the petitioner-accused
Jerry Valeroso liable of illegal possession of
firearm.
FACTS OF THE CASE: Petitioner was charged
with illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition under P.D. 1866 and was found
liable as charged before the RTC of Quezon City.On July 10, 1996, the Central District Command
served a duly issued warrant of arrest to Sr. Insp.
Jerry Valeroso in a case of kidnapping for
ransom. Valeroso was found and arrested in INP
Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City where he
was about to board a tricycle. He was bodily
searched and after which a firearm with live
ammunition was found tucked in his waist. The
subject firearm was later verified by the
Firearms and Explosive Division at Camp Crame
and was confirmed and revealed to have not
been issued to the petitioner but to another
person. The defense on the other hand
contended that Valeroso was arrested and
searched in the boarding house of his children in
New Era Quezon City. He was aroused from his
slumber when four heavily armed men in civilian
clothes bolted the room. The pointed their guns
on him and pulled him out of the room as the
raiding team went back inside, searched and
ransacked the room. Moments later an operative
came out of the room exclaiming that he has
found a gun inside. Adrian Yuson, an occupant
to the adjacent room testified for the defense.SPO3 Timbol, Jr. testified that the firearm with
live ammunition was issued to Jerry Valeroso by
virtue of a Memorandum Receipt. The petitioner
was found guilty as charged by the RTC. On
appeal, the appellate court affirmed the same.
Hence this petition. Petitioner raised the issue of
legalilty of the search and the admissibility and
validity of the evidence obtained as the same
was the fruit of the poisonous tree.
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless search
and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid.
RULING: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
the February 22, 2008 Decision and June 30,
2008 Resolution are RECONSIDERED and SET
ASIDE. Sr. Insp. Jerry Valeroso is hereby.
ACQUITTED of illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition.
RATIONALE/REASON: From the foregoing
narration of facts, we can readily conclude that
the arresting officers served the warrant ofarrest without any resistance from Valeroso.
The exception, therefore, should not be strained
beyond what is needed to serve its purpose. In
the case before us, search was made in the
locked cabinet which cannot be said to have
been within Valerosos immediate control. Thus,
the search exceeded the bounds of what may be
considered as an incident to a lawful arrest. Nor
can the warrantless search in this case be
justified under the "plain view doctrine." The
"plain view doctrine" may not be used to launch
unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures
or to extend a general exploratory search made
solely to find evidence of defendants guilt. The
doctrine is usually applied where a police officer
is not searching for evidence against the
accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes
across an incriminating object. Indeed, the
police officers were inside the boarding house of
Valerosos children, because they were supposed
to serve a warrant of arrest issued against
Valeroso. In other words, the police officers had
a prior justification for the intrusion.
Consequently, any evidence that they wouldinadvertently discover may be used against
Valeroso. However, in this case, the police
officers did not just accidentally discover the
subject firearm and ammunition; they actually
searched for evidence against Valeroso. Clearly,
the search made was illegal, a violation of
Valerosos right against unreasonable search
and seizure. Consequently, the evidence
obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible
in evidence against him.
Petitioner raised the issue of legalilty of the
search and the admissibility and validity of the
evidence obtained as the same was the fruit of
the poisonous tree.
They placed him immediately under their control
by pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him
out of the room with his hands tied. To be sure,the cabinet which, according to Valeroso, was
locked, could no longer be considered as an
"area within his immediate control" because
there was no way for him to take any weapon or
to destroy any evidence that could be used
against him.
The arresting officers would have been justified
in searching the person of Valeroso, as well as
the tables or drawers in front of him, for any
concealed weapon that might be used against
the former. But under the circumstances
obtaining, there was no comparable justification
to search through all the desk drawers and
cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas
in that room itself. It is worthy to note that the
purpose of the exception (warrantless search as
an incident to a lawful arrest) is to protect the
arresting officer from being harmed by the
person arrested, who might be armed with a
concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter
from destroying evidence within reach.
TATEMENT OF THE CASE: A petition for review
on certiorari involving the decision of the Hon.Court of Appeals which affirmed that of the RTC
of Quezon City in finding the petitioner-accused
Jerry Valeroso liable of illegal possession of
firearm.
FACTS OF THE CASE: Petitioner was charged
with illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition under P.D. 1866 and was found
liable as charged before the RTC of Quezon City.
On July 10, 1996, the Central District Command
served a duly issued warrant of arrest to Sr. Insp.
Jerry Valeroso in a case of kidnapping for
ransom. Valeroso was found and arrested in INP
Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City where he
was about to board a tricycle. He was bodily
searched and after which a firearm with live
ammunition was found tucked in his waist. The
subject firearm was later verified by the
Firearms and Explosive Division at Camp Crame
and was confirmed and revealed to have not
been issued to the petitioner but to another
person. The defense on the other hand
contended that Valeroso was arrested and
searched in the boarding house of his children inNew Era Quezon City. He was aroused from his
slumber when four heavily armed men in civilian
clothes bolted the room. The pointed their guns
on him and pulled him out of the room as the
raiding team went back inside, searched and
ransacked the room. Moments later an operative
came out of the room exclaiming that he has
found a gun inside. Adrian Yuson, an occupant
to the adjacent room testified for the defense.
SPO3 Timbol, Jr. testified that the firearm with
live ammunition was issued to Jerry Valeroso by
virtue of a Memorandum Receipt. The petitioner
was found guilty as charged by the RTC. On
appeal, the appellate court affirmed the same.
Hence this petition. Petitioner raised the issue of
legalilty of the search and the admissibility and
validity of the evidence obtained as the same
was the fruit of the poisonous tree.
Consequently, any evidence that they would
inadvertently discover may be used against
Valeroso. However, in this case, the police
officers did not just accidentally discover the
subject firearm and ammunition; they actuallysearched for evidence against Valeroso. Clearly,
the search made was illegal, a violation of
Valerosos right against unreasonable search
and seizure. Consequently, the evidence
obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible
in evidence against him.
FACTS OF THE CASE: Petitioner was charged
with illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition under P.D. 1866 and was found
liable as charged before the RTC of Quezon City.
On July 10, 1996, the Central District Command
served a duly issued warrant of arrest to Sr. Insp.
Jerry Valeroso in a case of kidnapping for
ransom. Valeroso was found and arrested in INP
Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City where he
was about to board a tricycle. He was bodily
searched and after which a firearm with live
ammunition was found tucked in his waist. The
subject firearm was later verified by the
Firearms and Explosive Division at Camp Crameand was confirmed and revealed to have not
been issued to the petitioner but to another
person. The defense on the other hand
contended that Valeroso was arrested and
searched in the boarding house of his children in
New Era Quezon City. He was aroused from his
slumber when four heavily armed men in civilian
clothes bolted the room. The pointed their guns
on him and pulled him out of the room as the
raiding team went back inside, searched and
ransacked the room. Moments later an operative
came out of the room exclaiming that he has
found a gun inside. Adrian Yuson, an occupant
to the adjacent room testified for the defense.
SP03 Timbol, Jr. testified that the firearm with
live ammunition was issued to Jerry Valeroso by
virtue of a Memorandum Receipt. The petitioner
was found guilty as charged by the RTC. On
appeal, the appellate court affirmed the same.
Hence this petition. Petitioner raised the issue of
legalilty of the search and the admissibility and
validity of the evidence obtained as the same
was the fruit of the poisonous tree.They placed him immediately under their control
by pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him
out of the room with his hands tied. To be sure,
the cabinet which, according to Valeroso, was
locked, could no longer be considered as an
"area within his immediate control" because
there was no way for him to take any weapon or
to destroy any evidence that could be used
against him.
The arresting officers would have been justified
in searching the person of Valeroso, as well as
the tables or drawers in front of him, for any
concealed weapon that might be used against
the former. But under the circumstances
obtaining, there was no comparable justification
to search through all the desk drawers and
cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas
in that room itself. It is worthy to note that the
purpose of the exception (warrantless search as
an incident to a lawful arrest) is to protect the
arresting officer from being harmed by the
person arrested, who might be armed with aconcealed weapon, and to prevent the latter
from destroying evidence within reach.
TATEMENT OF THE CASE: A petition for review
on certiorari involving the decision of the Hon.
Court of Appeals which affirmed that of the RTC
of Quezon City in finding the petitioner-accused
Jerry Valeroso liable of illegal possession of
firearm.
FACTS OF THE CASE: Petitioner was charged
with illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition under P._D. 1866 and was found
liable as charged before the RTC of Quezon City.
On July 10, 1996, the Central District Command
served a duly issued warrant of arrest to Sr. Insp.
Jerry Valeroso in a case of kidnapping for
ransom. Valeroso was found and arrested in INP
Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City where he
was about to board a tricycle. He was bodily
searched and after which a firearm with live
ammunition was found tucked in his waist. The
subject firearm was later verified by the
Firearms and Explosive Division at Camp Crame
and was confirmed and revealed to have notbeen issued to the petitioner but to another
person. The defense on the other hand
contended that Valeroso was arrested and
searched in the boarding house of his children in
New Era Quezon City. He was aroused from his
slumber when four heavily armed men in civilian
clothes bolted the room. The pointed their guns
on him and pulled him out of the room as the
raiding team went back inside, searched and
ransacked the room. Moments later an operative
came out of the room exclaiming that he has
found a gun inside. Adrian Yuson, an occupant
to the adjacent room testified for the defense.
SPO3 Timbol, Jr. testified that the firearm with
live ammunition was issued to Jerry Valeroso by
virtue of a Memorandum Receipt. The petitioner
was found guilty as charged by the RTC. On
appeal, the appellate court affirmed the same.
Hence this petition. Petitioner raised the issue of
legalilty of the search and the admissibility and
validity of the evidence obtained as the same
was the fruit of the poisonous tree.
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless searchand seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid.
RULING: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
the February 22, 2008 Decision and June 30,
2008 Resolution are RECONSIDERED and SET
ASIDE. Sr. Insp. Jerry Valeroso is hereby.
ACQUITTED of illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition.
RATIONALE/REASON: From the foregoing
narration of facts, we can readily conclude that
the arresting officers served the warrant of
arrest without any resistance from Valeroso.
The exception, therefore, should not be strained
beyond what is needed to serve its purpose. In
the case before us, search was made in the
locked cabinet which cannot be said to have
been within Valerosos immediate control. Thus,
the search exceeded the bounds of what may be
considered as an incident to a lawful arrest. Nor
can the warrantless search in this case be
justified under the "plain view doctrine." The
"plain view doctrine" may not be used to launchunbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures
or to extend a general exploratory search made
solely to find evidence of defendants guilt. The
doctrine is usually applied where a police officer
is not searching for evidence against the
accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes
across an incriminating object. Indeed, the
police officers were inside the boarding house of
Valerosos children, because they were supposed
to serve a warrant of arrest issued against
Valeroso. In other words, the police officers had
a prior justification for the intrusion.
Consequently, any evidence that they would
inadvertently discover may be used against
Valeroso. However, in this case, the police
officers did not just accidentally discover the
subject firearm and ammunition; they actually
searched for evidence against Valeroso. Clearly,
the search made was illegal, a violation of
Valerosos right against unreasonable search
and seizure. Consequently, the evidence
obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible
in evidence against him.