Rpadilla G.R 121917

1. G.R.
121917 ROBIN PADILLA VS CA and PEOPLE OF THE PHILS
FACTS :
Petitioner was involved in a hit and run accident along MacArthur

Highway in Angeles Pampanga as witnessed by Manarang, a member of the civic
group and the Bgy Disaster Council, together with his comrade Cruz. Manarang
tried to chase the Petitioner and reported the incident to the authorities until
he was apprehended. During the arrest, petitioner was found to have in his
possession high-powered firearms with live ammunitions as follows:
(1) One .357 Caliber revolver, Smith and Wesson, SN-32919 with six (6)
live ammunitions;
(2) One M-16 Baby Armalite rifle, SN-RP 131120 with four (4) long and one
(1) short magazine with ammunitions;
(3) One .380 Pietro Beretta, SN-A 35723 Y with clip and eight (8)
ammunitions; and
(4) Six additional live double action ammunitions of .38 caliber revolver.
Petitioner was correspondingly charged on December 3, 1992, before the

Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City with illegal possession of firearms
and ammunitions under P.D. 1866 and was subsequently convicted, hence the
petition.
ISSUES :
WON the warrantless search and arrest conducted on the petitioner was
valid.
HELD :
The Court of Appeals sustained petitioner's conviction by the lower

court of the crime of simple illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. It
AFFIRMED the decision EXCEPT that petitioner's indeterminate penalty is
MODIFIED to "ten (10) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to eighteen (18)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as maximum and the resolution
further states that :
Warrantless arrests are sanctioned in the following instances:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private

person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(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.
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another.
Paragraph (a) requires that the person be arrested after he has committed or
while he is actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an offense,
in the presence of the arresting officer or private person.
Both elements concurred here, as it has been established that petitioner's

vehicle figured in a hit and run — an offense committed in the "presence" of
Manarang, a private person, who then sought to arrest petitioner. It must be
stressed at this point that "presence" does not only require that the arresting
person sees the offense, but also when he "hears the disturbance created
thereby AND proceeds at once to the scene.
The five (5) well-settled instances when a warrantless search and seizure of
property is valid, are as follows:
1. warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section

12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court45 and by prevailing jurisprudence.
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the elements of which are:

(a). a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which
the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b). the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the
right to be where they are;
(c). the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
(d). "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further
search.
3. search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the

vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when
its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a
criminal activity.
4. consented warrantless search, and
5. customs search.
When in pursuit of an illegal action or in the commission of a criminal

offense, and the police officers happen to discover an offense being committed
by any person, they are not precluded from performing their duties as police
officers for the apprehension of the person involve and the taking of the corpus
delicti. Objects whose possession are prohibited by law inadvertently found in
plain view are subject to seizure even without a warrant.
With respect to the Berreta pistol and a black bag containing assorted
magazines, petitioner voluntarily surrendered them to the police. This latter
gesture of petitioner indicated a waiver of his right against the alleged search
and seizure , and that his failure to quash the information estopped him from
assailing any purported defect.
Likewise, the two-tiered test of an incidental search was satisfied a) the

item to be searched (vehicle) was within the arrestee's custody or area of
immediate control and b ) the search was contemporaneous with the arrest.
The products of that search are admissible evidence not excluded by the
exclusionary rule. Another justification is a search of a moving vehicle (third
instance). In connection therewith, a warrantless search is constitutionally
permissible when, as in this case, the officers conducting the search have
reasonable or probable cause to believe, before the search, that either the
motorist is a law-offender (like herein petitioner with respect to the hit and run)
or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the
subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense.
As to the petitioner’s defense that he is on a Mission Order, the court

ruled that ;
“No Mission Order shall be issued to any civilian agent authorizing the
same to carry firearms outside residence unless he/she is included in the
regular plantilla of the government agency involved in law enforcement
and is receiving regular compensation for the services he/she is
rendering in the agency. Further, the civilian agent must be included in a
specific law enforcement/police/intelligence project proposal or special
project which specifically required the use of firearms(s) to insure its
accomplishment and that the project is duly approved at the PC Regional
Command level or its equivalent level in other major services of the AFP,
INP and NBI, or at higher levels of command. Circular No. 1, dated
January 6, 1986, of the then Ministry of Justice likewise provides as
follows:
If mission orders are issued to civilians (not members of the uniformed

service), they must be civilian agents included in the regular plantilla of the
government agency involved in law enforcement and are receiving regular
compensation for the service they are rendering, which the petitioner failed to
prove.

Rpadilla G.R 121917

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rpadilla G.R 121917

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rpadilla G.R 121917

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1. G.R.

121917 ROBIN PADILLA VS CA and PEOPLE OF THE PHILS

Petitioner was involved in a hit and run accident along MacArthur

Petitioner was correspondingly charged on December 3, 1992, before the

The Court of Appeals sustained petitioner's conviction by the lower

Warrantless arrests are sanctioned in the following instances:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private

Both elements concurred here, as it has been established that petitioner's

1. warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section

2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the elements of which are:

3. search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the

4. consented warrantless search, and

When in pursuit of an illegal action or in the commission of a criminal

Likewise, the two-tiered test of an incidental search was satisfied a) the

As to the petitioner’s defense that he is on a Mission Order, the court

If mission orders are issued to civilians (not members of the uniformed

You might also like