138 Valeroso v. CA

UP Law F2021 138 Valeroso v.
CA
Criminal Procedure Scope of Search with 2009 Nachura
Warrant of Arrest
SUMMARY
Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest allegedly for kidnapping with ransom. At that time,
Valeroso was sleeping inside the boarding house of his children. He was awakened by the arresting officers
who were heavily armed. They pulled him out of the room, placed him beside the faucet outside the room,
tied his hands, and then put him under the care one officer. No resistance was shown by Valeroso. The other
officers ransacked the locked cabinet and found the subject firearm and ammunition. With such discovery,
Valeroso was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The RTC convicted him, as affirmed
by the CA and the SC. Valeroso’s motion for reconsideration was denied with finality. Valeroso filed a Letter-
Appeal in the nature of a second motion for reconsideration, which was granted by the Court. Valeroso was
acquitted of the crime charged.
FACTS
 Sr. Inspector Jerry Valeroso was charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866
(illegal/unlawful possession of firearms).
 The prosecution asserted that a warrant of arrest was issued against Valeroso for a case of kidnapping
with ransom. They spotted Valeroso boarding a tricycle in Quezon City and put him under arrest,
informed him of his constitutional rights and bodily searched him. They found a firearms and live
ammunition tucked in his waist. At the police station, it was discovered that the subject firearms was
not issued to Valeroso but a certain Raul Palencia.
 Meanwhile, the defense had a converse testimony. They said that Valeroso was sleeping inside a room
in the boarding house of his children when police officers who were heavily arms pointed their guns
at him and pulled him out of the room. He was placed near the faucet while the officers went back
inside, searched and ransacked the room and moments later discovered the firearm.
 RTC convicted Valeroso as charged and the Court of Appeals affirmed it with a modification in the
sentence. On petition for review, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision in full. Valeroso filed a
Motion for Reconsidered which was denied with finality on June 30, 2008.
 Valeroso filed a Letter-Appeal in the nature of a second motion for reconsideration. While a second
motion for reconsideration is, as a general rule, a prohibited pleading, it is within the sound discretion
of the Court to admit the same, provided it is with prior leave whenever substantive justice may be
better served.
RATIO
W/N the warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid?
No.
First, the warrantless search could not be justified as an incident to a lawful arrest, which is governed by
Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may
be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
The scope of the warrantless search is not without limitations. When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for
the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapon that the latter might use
in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might be endangered, and the
arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize
any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.
In lawful arrest, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a
warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within the latter’s
reach. A valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one
arrested or within the area of his immediate control, or the area from within which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is
arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested.
In the present case, the officers placed Valeroso under their control by pulling him out of bed, and bringing
him out of the room with his hands tied. The locked cabinet 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.
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 and evidence of defendant's guilt. The doctrine is usually applied where
a police officer not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across
an incriminating object. The police officers were inside the boarding house of Valeroso’s children because
they are supposed to serve a warrant of arrest issued against Valeroso, meaning they had prior justification
for the intrusion. Any evidence they would inadvertently discover may be used against Valeroso. In this
case however, the police officers did not accidentally discover the subject firearm and ammunition but
actually searched for evidence against Valeroso.
Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of Valeroso's right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Consequently, the evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible in evidence against him.
FALLO
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.
SO ORDERED.

138 Valeroso v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

138 Valeroso v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

138 Valeroso v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UP Law F2021 138 Valeroso v.

You might also like