(DIAZ_Hot Pursuit _ 8-930PM) 3I

[ G.R. No. 242889. March 14, 2022 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LENG HAIYUN, DANG HUIYIN, LIU WEN XION
A.K.A. “LUI XIN,” AND LEI GUANG FENG, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

DECISION

LOPEZ, J., J.:

In Criminal Case No. 2132-19, Leng Haiyun et al. were accused of conspiring, confederating, and
mutually helping each other to carry three MKE MP5KA4 firearms in their possession, control, and
custody during the election period in Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte, Philippines. They allegedly did so without
first securing the necessary license or authority to possess the firearms from the appropriate
government agency.

Upon arraignment, Leng Haiyun et al. pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. After termination of the
pre-trial, trial on merits ensued. The antecedents of the incident involve a gasoline boy named Michael
Claveria who noticed a silver gray Toyota Previa parked at a gasoline station in Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte. He
reported the incident to the police, who followed him back to the gasoline station. Upon arrival, police
officers found the vehicle with four foreigners, including Leng Haiyun et al., and several pieces of plate
numbers scattered on the floor.

The police officers cordoned the area and handcuffed Leng Haiyun, et al., and later searched the vehicle
for firearms, explosives, and plate numbers. They found an MP5 submachinegun on the floor of the
vehicle and found several other firearms, pieces of explosives, and plate numbers on the floor of the
second and third rows.

Leng Haiyun et al. denied the allegations against them, claiming that no firearms and explosives were
found inside the Toyota Previa. They also belied the police officers’ claim that several plate numbers
were scattered on the floor of the vehicle. After trial, the RTC convicted Leng Haiyun, et al. for illegal
possession of explosives and violation of the election gun ban but dismissed the case for illegal
possession of firearms.

The court ruled in Criminal Case No. 2131-19 that Leng Haiyun, Dang Huiyin, Liu Wen Xion, and Lei
Guang Feng were found guilty of illegal possession of explosives and violation of Section 261 (q) of the
Omnibus Election Code in relation to COMELEC Resolution No. 9561-A. They were sentenced to reclusion
perpetua. The case was dismissed pursuant to Agote v. Lorenzo and Madrigal v. People, and the firearms,
ammunitions, explosives, and other contraband recovered from the accused were forfeited and
confirmed in favor of the government.
The RTC ruled that the warrantless arrest and subsequent search of the subject vehicle are valid, as the
police officers were authorized to search the vehicle where the firearms were seen. The CA affirmed the
conviction of Leng Haiyun, et al., stating that the report of the gasoline boy was not the sole basis for
their warrantless arrest. The Court ruled that the prosecution had proven the accused-appellants’
animus possidendi, which is a state of mind that depends on the attendant events in each case.

The court did not see how the offense of illegal possession of explosives was a necessary means of
committing the offense of violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 9561-A. The charge under Criminal Case
No. 2133-19 was for violation of the COMELEC gun ban, which the accused-appellants could be
convicted of, as in fact they were. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove that they
were aware of the firearms and ammunitions inside the vehicle, considering that their use thereof was
limited to 10-20 minutes only. In this case, the accused-appellants spotted police officers’ vehicle and
fled towards the north direction, demonstrating their suspicion and awareness of the presence of
firearms and ammunition inside the Toyota Previa. The police officers immediately noticed the existence
of the butts and barrels of several firearms as soon as one of the accused-appellants slid open the
vehicle’s door and alighted therefrom. The accused-appellants vehemently assert that the root cause of
the search of the vehicle and the arrest was the report of the gasoline boy that one of the accused-
appellants was breaking bottles and causing a commotion. They posit that breaking bottles is not per se
a crime, since the same may be done negligently.

The court disagreed with the CA’s finding that the warrantless search was incidental to a lawful arrest
because there was no valid warrantless arrest in the first place. The circumstances of the case do not fall
within the purview of Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, but of Section 5
(b). In Abelita III v. P/Supt. Doria, the court found that there was a valid warrantless arrest under the
foregoing provision. In this case, an offense had just been committed and the police officers had
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused-appellants have committed it.

In the present case, the police officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused-
appellants have committed it. The accused-appellant admitted the bottle-breaking incident when asked
about it by Police Inspector Tayaban. The court ruled that the warrantless search was incidental to a
lawful arrest, as there was no valid warrantless arrest in the first place.

The text describes a case involving the arrest of Liu Wen Xion, a man who threw out a Red Bull after
drinking. The incident was reported to the police station, and the officers immediately responded to the
scene. They found the vehicle, but the accused-appellants noticed their presence, leading them to flee.
The police chased them and interceded at a COMELEC checkpoint.

The court found that the police officers had personal knowledge of the crime and probable cause to
justify their warrantless arrest. They also saw six plate numbers scattered on the vehicle’s floor behind
the driver’s seat and the accused-appellants’ lack of identification or official travel documents. The
accused-appellants allege that the Toyota Previa was only being used for touring around the province,
but they could not present their passports to the police.

The court found that the police officers conducted a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5 (b), Rule
113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The police officers seized the contraband in “plain view”
and as an incident to a lawful arrest. The accused-appellants argue that the warrantless search and
seizure are illegal since the arrest was unlawful at the inception. However, the court finds that the police
officers’ seizure of the evidence was in “plain view,” which requires a valid search warrant before a law
enforcer can validly search or seize a person’s house, papers, or effects.

PI Tayaban had a prior justification for the intrusion because the accused-appellants were legally
arrested in accordance with Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. They saw several butts and
barrels of different firearms in plain view while disembarking from the vehicle.

The court heard a case where police officers, including PI Tayaban and others, discovered firearms and
explosives inside a vehicle. They were strategically positioned to see the inside of the vehicle, which led
to the discovery of contraband. The officers cordoned the area and handcuffed four male individuals,
who were informed of their constitutional rights and the government’s provision of free counsel.

The police officers searched the vehicle with the presence of media people, barangay officials, and other
officers. They found eight different types of firearms, three submachine guns, several ammunitions, eight
hand grenade explosives, and one improvised explosive device, a bomb. Similar cases have been made in
Abelita III and Miclat, Jr. v. People, where the police officers seized firearms and explosives as evidence of
a crime.

The seizure made by PCI de Guzman of the firearms and explosives from the accused-appellants also
qualified as a search incidental to a lawful arrest. Section 13, Rules 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure allows for searches for dangerous weapons or anything that may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. In Miclat, Jr. v. People, the
court ruled that the seizure made by the police officer was incidental to a lawful arrest and fell within
the purview of the "plain view" doctrine.

The court established that the accused-appellants’ arrest falls among the instances for a valid
warrantless arrest and that the evidence seized was the result of a search of evidence in “plain view.”
The contraband seized were admissible in evidence to prove their guilt.

In a final attempt to secure their acquittal, the accused-appellants argued that serious doubts exist about
the existence of the firearms, ammunitions, and grenades inside the vehicle. PCI De Guzman testified
that he personally conducted the search and positively identified the seized items.The court ruled in
favor of the government in a case involving Chinese nationals Leng Haiyun, Dang Huiyin, Liu Wen Xion,
and Lei Guang Fang. The accused-appellants, who were Chinese nationals in a foreign land, were
sentenced to reclusion perpetua for illegal possession of explosives and election offenses. The court also
found that the accused-appellants were guilty of violating Section 261 (q) of the Omnibus Election Code,
in relation to COMELEC Resolution No. 9561-A. They were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment ranging from two years to five years. The court also dismissed Criminal Case No. 2132-19,
allowing the government to confiscate the firearms, ammunitions, explosives, and other contraband
recovered from the accused. The court found that the accused-appellants were just near the police
officers and did not witness the actual search. The court also found that there is no evidence to prove
their presence during the search, as PO2 Llamelo admitted during cross-examination that they witnessed
the search. The court emphasized that the accused-appellants’ situation was not a result of their actions
but rather a result of their deliberate disregard of Philippine immigration laws.

G.R. No. 238659, June 03, 2019

FRANKLIN B. VAPOROSO AND JOELREN B. TULILIK, PETITIONERS, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The petitioners, Franklin B. Vaporoso and Joelren B. Tulilik, filed a petition for review on certiorari against
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 01414-MIN, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court of
Panabo City, Davao del Norte, Branch 34 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. CrC 430-2013 and CrC 431-2013,
finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

The prosecution claimed that on August 25, 2013, while patrolling along National Highway, they saw two
men, identified as petitioners, aboard a motorcycle with the back rider holding a lady bag. When PO2
Torculas shouted at them to halt, the latter sped away. The owner of the vehicle, Narcisa Dombase,
informed PO2 Torculas that petitioners broke the window of her vehicle and took her belongings. The
police officers chased the petitioners until they entered a dark, secluded area in Bangoy Street.

After successfully recovering Dombase’s bags and belongings, the police conducted a more thorough
search on the petitioners, yielding plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from Vaporoso
and four plastic sachets with similar white crystalline substance from Tulilik. These items were tested
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.
The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charges and were sentenced to imprisonment of 14 to 17 years
and a fine of P300,000.00. The CA affirmed the ruling, stating that a search is permissible under Rule 19
of the Philippine National Police Handbook.

The court has been tasked with determining whether police officers lawfully arrested petitioners without
a warrant, as the resolution of this issue determines the validity of the subsequent search. The
petitioners argue that the searches were illegal and the items seized are inadmissible in evidence. The
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that the drugs seized were products of a valid search
incidental to a lawful warrantless arrest. The court notes that the petitioners failed to question the
legality of their arrest and actively participated in the trial, thus waiving any objections. However, the
waiver of an illegal arrest does not necessarily mean a waiver of the Inadmissibility of evidence seized
during an illegal warrantless arrest. Therefore, the court must determine whether the police officers
conducted a valid warrantless arrest on the petitioners.

Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure outlines the general parameters for
lawful warrantless arrests. In cases falling under these paragraphs, a person can be arrested without a
warrant if they have committed, are committing, or are attempting to commit an offense, have probable
cause to believe they have committed it, or are a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place. The arrest must be delivered to the nearest police station or jail and proceeded against in
accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112.

Three instances where warrantless arrests may be lawfully effected are: (a) an arrest of a suspect in
flagrante delicto; (b) an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer,
there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed;
and (c) an arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily
confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement
to another.

In People v. Manago, the Court held that the element of “personal knowledge of facts or circumstances”
must be coupled with the element of immediacy, as otherwise, the arrest may be nullified and the items
yielded through the search incidental thereto will be rendered inadmissible in consonance with the
exclusionary rule of the 1987 Constitution.

The court ruled that petitioners were validly arrested without a warrant, following the “hot pursuit”
doctrine. The court examined two searches made on them: a body search after the arrest and a more
thorough search at the Panabo Police Station where seized drugs were allegedly recovered. The purpose
of allowing a warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is to protect the arresting officer
from harm and to prevent evidence destruction. The court concluded that the first search, which did not
yield any drugs but only personal belongings, may be considered a valid search incidental to a lawful
arrest. However, the second search, which yielded the drugs, was unlawful and unreasonable. The illegal
drugs allegedly recovered from the search constitute inadmissible evidence, and the petitioners must be
acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability. The court reversed the decision and set aside the
resolution, allowing petitioners Franklin B. Vaporoso and Joelren B. Tulilik to be acquitted of the crime
charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause their immediate release, unless
they are lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

[ G.R. No. 247401. December 05, 2022 ]

ROMEO BACOD Y MERCADO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DE C I S I O N

CAGUIOA, J.:

A Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed against the Court of Appeals – First Division (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR No. 40093, which dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner Romeo Bacod y Mercado. The CA found
that Branch 224, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC) did not err in convicting Bacod for illegal
possession of firearms and explosives.

Four consolidated Informations were filed with the RTC charging Bacod and another accused, Remigio
Umali y De Leon, with Robbery, violation of RA 10591, and violation of PD 1866 as amended by RA 9516.
Three of these Informations implicated Bacod.

In the first case, Bacod was charged with illegal possession of firearms, robbery, and highway robbery. He
was accused of having a Caliber.45 pistol with a defaced serial number inserted with a magazine loaded
with seven pieces of live ammunition without the necessary license to possess. In the second case, he
was accused of having an MK-2 Fragmentation Hand Granade without the necessary license to possess.

During trial, the prosecution’s evidence established that on April 20, 2015, Ernesto A. OITE and his helper
Michael P. Rosas were robbed and taken away from a truck carrying Champion Laundry Bar/Powder soap
worth approximately Php1,200,000.00. They were arrested by police officers who found a.45-caliber
Remington semi-automatic pistol tucked in his waist and a hand grenade in his bag.

During a pursuit and arrest, a team of police officers arrived at the scene to assist in the chase. They
found a car carrying one man, later identified as Remigio D. Umali, wearing an athletic uniform. The
passenger was ordered out of the car and alighted, and Ernesto identified him as one of the robbers.
Umali was apprehended, and he was found with a.38-caliber revolver containing five rounds of live
ammunition in his cylinder.

The police officers brought the accused and the confiscated evidence back to the police station, where
case investigator SPO3 Andres Dulay received the confiscated evidence. The.45-caliber pistol, its
magazine, and the seven cartridges in it were marked “RB/ZN-1” to “RB/ZN-7,” respectively. The hand
grenade was marked “RB/TS 4-20-15” and the revolver was marked “RU/WC 4-20-15” and the five
cartridges in it were marked “RU/WC-1” to “RU/WC-5.” Photographs of the evidence recovered were
also taken during the same occasion.

The defense presented Its lone witness, ROMEO BACOD y MERCADO, who testified that he was at home
on April 20, 2015, when four policemen and his co-accused Remigio Umali came to him to fix a ten-
wheeler truck that broke down in Sta. Mesa, Manila. He alleged that a person drove the truck with him
sitting on the passenger seat following the Mitsubishi Galant driven by accused Remigio Umali. Police
officers flagged them down, and Umali was arrested. He denied the allegations against him except for his
possession of a caliber.45 Remington piston and a hand grenade.

In a decision dated February 24, 2017, the RTC acquitted Bacod and Umali from the Robbery charge but
convicted them for the rest of the charges. A Mittimus Order to the National Penitentiary was issued for
Bacod’s service of sentence, while a Warrant of Arrest was issued for Umali’s immediate apprehension
and service of sentence.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Bacod and Umali in the Robbery charge, stating that the
prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. However, the RTC still convicted both for
Illegal Possession of Firearms and Bacod for Illegal Possession of Explosives. Bacod filed an appeal with
the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the seized items were inadmissible as they were seized pursuant
to an unlawful warrantless arrest.

The CA denied the appeal with modification as to the penalty imposed. The CA ruled that Bacod’s
acquittal in the Robbery charge did not translate into the invalidity of his arrest. The search incidental to
a lawful arrest conducted on his person that brought about the discovery of the seized items was not an
unlawful warrantless search. The CA also affirmed that the RTC’s finding that the prosecution was able to
prove the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

Bacod sought reconsideration of the Decision of the CA, but the CA denied the same in a Resolution
dated May 14, 2019. The present petition presented by Bacod is: (1) whether the Court of Appeals
gravely erred in convicting the petitioner despite the inadmissibility of the pieces of evidence allegedly
seized from him pursuant to the unlawful warrantless search and seizure conducted after his unlawful
warrantless arrest,” and (2) whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in convicting the petitioner of
the offense of qualified unlawful possession of firearms and ammunitions despite the prosecution’s
failure to prove the elements thereof.

The court ruled that the petition has no merit. The seized items upon which his convictions are anchored
were not inadmissible. The CA was correct in its ruling that Bacod’s acquittal in the Robbery charge did
not result in the invalidity of his arrest.
The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that the police officers had probable cause to effect a warrantless arrest
on Romeo Bacod during a hot pursuit. This led to the admissibility of the items confiscated from Bacod
during the search. The prosecution proved the elements of the crime, including the existence of a
firearm and the fact that the accused did not have the corresponding license for it. The court also
modified the imposition of the penalty in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-103913-CR to eight years and one
day of prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, and upheld the imposition of the penalty of
imprisonment of sixteen years and one day of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum, in
Criminal Case No. R-QZN-03915-CR.

The CA did”not err when it affirmed the RTC’s ruling convicting Bacod for the crimes of Illegal Possession
of Firearms and Illegal Possession of Explosives. The appeal was denied, and the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR No. 40093 affirming the convictions of petitioner Romeo Bacod y Mercado for violation of
Section 28(a), in relation to Section 28 (e-1) of Republic Act No. 10591, and violation of Presidential
Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 9516.

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 218250. July 10, 2017 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GIO COSGAFA Y CLAMOCHA, JIMMY

SARCEDA Y AGANG, AND ALLAN VIVO Y APLACADOR, ACCUSED-

DECISION

TIJAM, J.:

The appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA) of Cebu City maintains the conviction of Gio Cosgafa y
Clamocha, Jimmy Sarceda y Agang, and Allan Vivo y Aplacador for murder in the Regional Trial Court of
Tagbilaran City, Branch 2. The accused-appellants were charged with conspiring to kill Nathaniel
Asombrado, Sr. on October 26, 2002, in Tubigon, Bohol, Philippines. They were accused of using
Batangas knives and icepick to attack the victim without giving him an opportunity to defend himself.
The victim died instantly due to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.

The prosecution presented witnesses, including Ronald Manatad, Panfilo Baura, Rosbill Manatad, Police
Officer 3 Vincent Russam Mascariñas, Dra. Adoracion L. Torregosa, Ruben Asombrado, and Senior Police
Officer 1 Joel Sabang. The victim was found dead at the hospital, suffering from hypovolemia due to
severe intra-abdominal hemorrhage. Dra. Torregosa’s testimony indicated that the wounds could have
been inflicted by a sharp pointed instrument like an ice pick.

The accused-appellants admitted to the crime at the police station and were arrested upon arrival. The
victim’s brother, Ruben, testified about the expenses incurred due to the victim’s death, including
embalming, novena, burial expenses, attorney’s fees, court hearings, miscellaneous expenses, and
Tagbilaran City hearings. An amount of PhP1 million was also claimed for moral damages.

The court ruled that the accused-appellants were responsible for the victim’s death, as they admitted to
stabbed him without provocation. This self-defense defense is an inherently weak defense, as it can be
easily fabricated. To prove this, the court must rely on clear and convincing evidence that excludes any
vestige of criminal aggression. The court found that the accused-appellants’ self-serving assertion that
the victim was the aggressor cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses.

The court also noted that the perceived threat to their lives due to the victim’s bigger physical built and
alleged knowledge of martial arts was merely based on the accused appellants’ speculation and
imagination, not proven to be real or imminent. The severity, location, and number of wounds and
injuries suffered by the victim belie the accused-appellants' claim of self-defense, suggesting a serious
intent to inflict harm on the part of the accused-appellants for purposes of retaliation rather than
defending themselves from imminent peril to life.

In the case of Allan, the court found that his participation in the crime was established by the
prosecution through credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence. This evidence led to the inescapable
conclusion that Allan, along with his co-accused, participated in the killing of the victim. The court did
not find any cogent reason to deviate from the findings of fact made by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.

Allan did not deny any of these facts during his testimony, but instead, he imputed error on the part of
the trial court in upholding the admissibility of the knife recovered from him despite its being a product
of an invalid search considering that the police officers had no personal knowledge that he was one of
the perpetrators of the crime when he was arrested without warrant.

The court ruled that the accused-appellants were responsible for the victim’s death, and that self-
defense was an inherently weak defense. The court found that the accused-appellants’ self-serving
assertion that the victim was the aggressor when they chased them and held Jimmy’s shirt and kicked
him without provocation cannot prevail over the positive and consistent testimonies of prosecution
witnesses. The CA correctly observed that the alleged attack coming from the victim, where the latter
chased them and grabbed and kicked Jimmy, is not the kind of attack that would put the person of the
accused-appellants in peril. Furthermore, the perceived threat to their lives due to the victim’s bigger
built and alleged knowledge of martial arts is merely based on the accused appellants’ speculation and
imagination, not proven to be real nor imminent.

The severity, location, and number of wounds and injuries suffered by the victim belie the accused-
appellants’ claim of self-defense. This evidence is indicative of a serious intent to inflict harm on the part
of the accused-appellants for purposes of retaliation, not merely for the purpose of defending
themselves from an imminent peril to life. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured
party already ceased when the accused attacked him; while in self-defense, the aggression still existed
when the aggressor was injured by the accused.

The court found that Allan's participation in the crime was established by the prosecution through
credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence. The court did not find any cogent reason to deviate from
the findings of fact made by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The circumstances constitute an unbroken
chain, which constrains the conclusion that Allan, with his co-accused, participated in the killing of the
victim.

The case revolves around the arrest of Allan and his coaccused, who were involved in a crime. The arrest
was based on a hot pursuit, and the knife seized from Allan is admissible in evidence. The accused-
appellants were found to have committed abuse of superior strength, using excessive force to kill the
victim, who was alone and unarmed. The RTC and CA correctly sentenced them to reclusion perpetua,
without any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The court awarded civil indemnity and temperate
damages, but increased the award of moral damages from PhP50,000 to PhP75,000. The court also
imposed an interest rate of 6% per annum on all monetary awards. The court ruled that the appellants
were jointly and severally ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages,
temperate damages, attorney’s fees, and heirs’ interest on the civil indemnity and damages. The court
also ordered the appellants to pay the heirs interest on the civil indemnity and all damages awarded at
the legal rate of 6% per annum.