PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROLANDO DE GRACIA, CHITO
HENSON and JOHN DOES, accused.
ROLANDO DE GRACIA, accused-
appellant.
G. R. No. 102009-10 July 6, 1994
 • Reform the Armed Forces Movement-
FACT Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-
SFP) staged coup d’état in December
S 1989 against the Government.
 • Maj. Efren Soria of Intelligence Division,
NCR Defense Command, together with his
team, conducted a surveillance of the Eurocar
Sales Office in EDSA, QC on early morning

FACT of December 1, 1989, which surveillance

actually started November 30, 1989 at around
10:00 PM. Such surveillance was conducted
S pursuant to an intelligence report that the
said establishment was being occupied by the
elements of the RAM-SFP as communication
command post.
 • Near the Eurocar office, there were crowd
watching the on-going bombardment near Camp
Aguinaldo when a group of 5 men disengaged
themselves and walked towards their surveillance

FACT car. Maj. Soria ordered the driver (Sgt. Crispin

Sagario) to start the car and leave the area.
However, as they passed the area, then 5 men
S drew their guns and fired at them, which resulted
to the wounding of the driver on the right thigh..
Nobody in the surveillance team retaliated for
they were afraid that civilians might be caught in
the crossfire.
 • Thereafter, on the morning of December
5, 1989, a search team raided the
Eurocar Sales Office and confiscated:

FACT
S a)
b)
6 cartons of M-16 ammunition;
5 bundles of C-4 dynamites;
c) M-shells of different calibers; and
d) 100 bottles of MOLOTOV bombs;
 • Obenia, who first entered the
FACT establishment, found De Gracia in the
office of a certain Col. Matillano, holding
S a C-4 and suspiciously peeping though
door.
 • No search warrant was secured by the
raiding team because, according to them,
there was so much disorder considering
FACT that the nearby Camp Aguinaldo was
being mopped up by the rebel forces and
S there was simultaneous firing within the
vicinity of the Eurocar office, aside from
the fact that the courts were
consequently closed.
 • Whether there was a valid
ISSUE search and seizure in this case.
RULIN • AFFIRMATIVE. There was a valid
search and seizure in this case.
G
 • It is admitted that the raiding team was not
armed with a search warrant at that time. It was
actually precipitated by intelligence reports that
said office was being used as headquarters by the

RULIN RAM. Prior to the raid, there was a surveillance

conducted on the premises wherein the
surveillance team was fired at by a group of men
G coming from the Eurocar building. When the
military operatives raided the place, the
occupants thereof refused to open the door
despite requests for them to do so, thereby
compelling the former to break into the office.
 • The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not
a gun store and it is definitely not an
armory or arsenal which are the usual
depositories for explosives and
RULIN ammunition. It is primarily and solely
engaged in the sale of automobiles. The
G presence of an unusual quantity of high-
powered firearms and explosives could
not be justifiably or even colorably
explained.
 • In addition, there was general chaos and
disorder at that time because of
simultaneous and intense firing within
RULIN the vicinity of the office and in the
nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was
G under attack by rebel forces. The courts
in the surrounding areas were obviously
closed and, for that matter, the building
and houses therein were deserted.
 • SC considered that the instant case falls under one of
the exceptions to the prohibition against a
warrantless search. In the first place, the military
operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in
this case, had reasonable ground to believe that a

RULIN crime was being committed. There was consequently

more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their
action. Furthermore, in the prevailing situation, the
G raiding team had no opportunity to apply for and
secure a search warrant from the courts. The trial
judge himself manifested that on December 5, 1989
when the raid was conducted, his court was closed.
Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a
search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.
 Doctrine: Where the military operatives had
reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was
being committed, and had no opportunity to apply
for and secure a search warrant from the courts, the
same constituted an exception to the prohibition
against warrantless searches.