G.R. No.

209387, January 11, 2016

ERWIN LIBO-ON DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.

Routine baggage inspections conducted by port authorities, although done

without search warrants, are not unreasonable searches per se.
Constitutional provisions protecting privacy should not be so literally
understood so as to deny reasonable safeguards to ensure the safety of the
traveling public.

For resolution is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the

Decision2 dated September 28, 2012 and the Resolution3 dated August 23,
2013 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City.4 The Court of Appeals affirmed5 the
trial court's Judgment6 finding petitioner Erwin Libo-on Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz)
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of possessing unlicensed firearms under
Commission on Elections Resolution No. 77647 in relation to Section 2618 of
Batas Pambansa Big. 8819 during the 2007 election period.10

Dela Cruz was an on-the-job trainee of an inter-island vessel. He frequently

traveled, "coming back and forth taking a vessel."12 At around 12:00 noon of
May 11, 2007, Dela Cruz was at a pier of the Cebu Domestic Port to go
home to Iloilo.13While buying a ticket, he allegedly left his bag on the floor
with a porter.14 It took him around 15 minutes to purchase a ticket.15

Dela Cruz then proceeded to the entrance of the terminal and placed his bag
on the x-ray scanning machine for inspection.16 The operator of the x-ray
machine saw firearms inside Dela Cruz's bag.17

Cutie Pie Flores (Flores) was the x-ray machine operator-on-duty on May 11,
2007.18 She saw the impression of what appeared to be three (3) firearms
inside Dela Cruz's bag.19 Upon seeing the suspected firearms, she called the
attention of port personnel Archie Igot (Igot) who was the baggage inspector
then.20

Igot asked Dela Cruz whether he was the owner of the bag.21 Dela Cruz
answered Igot in the affirmative and consented to Igot's manual inspection
of the bag.22

"Port Police Officer Adolfo Abregana [(Officer Abregana)] was on duty at the
terminal of the Cebu Domestic Port in Pier 1-G when his attention was called
by ... Igot."23 Igot told Officer Abregana that there were firearms in a bag
owned by a certain person.24 Igot then pointed to the person.25 That person
was later identified as Dela Cruz.26

Dela Cruz admitted that he was owner of the bag.27 The bag was then
inspected and the following items were found inside: three (3) revolvers;
NBI clearance; seaman's book; other personal items; and four (4) live
ammunitions placed inside the cylinder.28 When asked whether he had the
proper documents for the firearms, Dela Cruz answered in the negative.29

Dela Cruz was then arrested and informed of his violation of a crime
punishable by law.30 He was also informed of his constitutional rights.31

In the Information dated November 19, 2003, Dela Cruz was charged with
violation of Republic Act No. 8294 for illegal possession of
firearms.32chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Criminal Case No. CBU -80084

That on or about the 11th day of May 2007, at about 12:45 p.m. in the City
of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, with the deliberate intent and without being authorized by law,
did then and there possess and carry outside his residence one (1) Cal. 38
Simith [sic] & Wesson revolver without serial number; one (1) .22 Smith &
Wesson Magnum revolver without serial number; one (1) North American
Black Widow magnum revolver without serial number and four rounds of live
ammunitions for cal. 38 without first securing the necessary license to
possess and permit to carry from the proper authorities.

CONTRARY TO LAW.33ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Subsequently, another Information was filed charging Dela Cruz with the
violation of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 7764, in relation to
Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 88134chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Criminal Case No. CBU 80085

That on or about the 11th day of May 2007, at about 12:45 in the afternoon,
which is within the election period for the May 14, 2007 National and Local
Elections, in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, did then and there
possess and carry outside his residence the following
One (1) cal. .38 Simith [sic] & Wesson revolver without serial number; One
(1) cal. .22 Smith & Wesson Magnum revolver without serial number; One
(1) North American Black Widow magnum revolver without serial number
and four (4) rounds of live ammunitions for cal. 38.

CONTRARY TO LAW.35ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Dela Cruz entered a plea of not guilty to both charges during arraignment.36

After trial, Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City found Dela Cruz
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the Gun Ban under Commission
on Elections Resolution No. 7764, in relation to Section 261 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881 in Criminal Case No. CBU 80085.37 Dela Cruz was
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year with disqualification from
holding public office and the right to suffrage.38

According to the trial court, the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that Dela Cruz committed illegal possession of
firearms.39 It proved the following elements: "(a) the existence of the
subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it
does not have the license or permit to possess the same."40 The prosecution
presented the firearms and live ammunitions found in Dela Cruz's
possession.41 It also presented three (3) prosecution witnesses who testified
that the firearms were found inside Dela Cruz's bag.42 The prosecution also
presented a Certification that Dela Cruz did not file any application for
license to possess a firearm, and he was not given authority to carry a
firearm outside his residence.43

The trial court also held that the search conducted by the port authorities
was reasonable and, thus, valid44

Given the circumstances obtaining here, the court finds the search
conducted by the port authorities reasonable and, therefore, not violative of
the accused's constitutional rights. Hence, when the search of the bag of the
accused revealed the firearms and ammunitions, accused is deemed to have
been caught in flagrante delicto, justifying his arrest even without a warrant
under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
firearms and ammunitions obtained in the course of such valid search are
thus admissible as evidence against [the] accused.45

The trial court did not give credence to Dela Cruz's claim that the firearms
were "planted" inside his bag by the porter or anyone who could have
accessed his bag while he was buying a ticket.46 According to the trial court,
Dela Cruz's argument was "easy to fabricate, but terribly difficult to
disprove."47 Dela Cruz also did not show improper motive on the part of the
prosecution witnesses to discredit their testimonies.48

The trial court dismissed the case for violation of Republic Act No. 8294.49 It
held that "Republic Act No. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of
firearms, provided that the person arrested committed 'no other
crime.'"50 Dela Cruz, who had been charged with illegal possession of
firearms, was also charged with violating the Gun Ban under Commission on
Elections Resolution No. 7764.51

The dispositive portion of the trial court's Consolidated Judgment reads

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 7764 in relation to Section 261 of BP
Blg. 881 in Criminal Case No. CBU-80085, and hereby sentences him to
suffer an imprisonment for a period of one (1) year, and to suffer
disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right to suffrage.

While Criminal Case No. CBU-80084 for Violation of RA 8294 is

hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the cash bond posted by accused therein
for his provisional liberty is hereby ordered cancelled and released to said
accused.

The subject firearms (Exhs. "H", "I" & "J"), and the live ammunitions (Exhs.
"K to K-2"") shall, however, remain in custodia legis for proper disposition of
the appropriate government agency.

SO ORDERED.52 (Emphasis in the original)

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's Judgment.53 It held
that the defense failed to show that the prosecution witnesses were moved
by improper motive; thus, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and
credit.54 The acts of government authorities were found to be regular.55

The Court of Appeals did not find Dela Cruz's defense of denial
meritorious.56 "Denial as a defense has been viewed upon with disfavor by
the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted."57 Dela Cruz did
not present any evidence "to show that he had authority to carry outside of
residence firearms and ammunition during the period of effectivity of the
Gun Ban [during] election time." The prosecution was able to prove Dela
Cruz's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision provides

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The

assailed January 27, 2010 Consolidated Judgment of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 12 of Cebu City in Criminal Case CBU-59434 is hereby
AFFIRMED. Costs on accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.59 (Emphasis in the original)

Dela Cruz filed a Motion for Reconsideration,60 which was denied by the
Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated August 23, 2013.61

Dela Cruz filed this Petition on November 4, 2013.62 In the

Resolution63 dated December 9, 2013, this court required respondent,
through the Office of the Solicitor General, to submit its Comment on the
Petition. Respondent submitted its Comment64 on March 6, 2014, which this
court noted in the Resolution65 dated March 19, 2014.

Dela Cruz claims that he was an on-the-job trainee for an inter-island

vessel.66 He was "well[-]acquainted with [the] inspection scheme [at the]
ports."67 He would not have risked placing prohibited items such as
unlicensed firearms inside his luggage knowing fully the consequences of
such an action.68

According to Dela Cruz, when he arrived at the port on May 11, 2007, he left
his luggage with a porter to buy a ticket.69 "A considerable time of fifteen
minutes went by before he could secure the ticket while his luggage was left
sitting on the floor with only the porter standing beside it."70 He claims that
someone must have placed the unlicensed firearms inside his bag during the
period he was away from it.71 He was surprised when his attention was
called by the x-ray machine operator after the firearms were detected.72

Considering the circumstances, Dela Cruz argues that there was no

voluntary waiver against warrantless search73

In petitioner's case, it may well be said that, with the circumstances

attending the search of his luggage, he had no actual intention to relinquish
his right against warrantless searches. He knew in all honest belief that
when his luggage would pass through the routine x-ray examination, nothing
incriminating would be recovered. It was out of that innocent confidence that
he allowed the examination of his luggage. . . . [H]e believed that no
incriminating evidence would be found. He knew he did not place those
items. But what is strikingly unique about his situation is that a considerable
time interval lapsed, creating an opportunity for someone else to place
inside his luggage those incriminating items.74 (Emphasis in the original)

Respondent argues that there was a valid waiver of Dela Cruz's right to
unreasonable search and seizure, thus warranting his conviction.75 Dela Cruz
was "caught in flagrante delicto carrying three (3) revolvers and four (4) live
ammunitions when his bag went through the x-ray machine in the Cebu
Domestic Port on May 11, 2007, well within the election period."76 The
firearms were seized during a routine baggage x-ray at the port of Cebu, a
common seaport security procedure.77

According to respondent, this case is similar to valid warrantless searches

and seizures conducted by airport personnel pursuant to routine airport
security procedures.78

Records are also clear that Dela Cruz voluntarily waived his right to
unreasonable searches and seizure.79 The trial court found that Dela Cruz
voluntarily gave his consent to the search.80

Dela Cruz's claim that his bag was switched is also baseless.81 The witnesses
categorically testified that Dela Cruz was "in possession of the bag before it
went through the x-ray machine, and he was also in possession of the same
bag that contained the firearms when he was apprehended."82

Dela Cruz raised the lone issue of "whether the Court of Appeals gravely
erred in finding [him] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged
despite the failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt[.]"83

The issues for resolution in this case are

First, whether petitioner Erwin Libo-on Dela Cruz was in possession of the
illegal firearms within the meaning of the Commission on Elections
Resolution No. 7764, in relation to Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881;

Second, whether petitioner waived his right against unreasonable searches

and seizures; and

Lastly, assuming that there was no waiver, whether there was a valid search
and seizure in this case.

We deny the Petition.

I
The present criminal case was brought to this court under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. The penalty imposed on petitioner by the trial court is
material in determining the mode of appeal to this court. A petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 must be differentiated from appeals under
Rule 124, Section 1384 involving cases where the lower court imposed on the
accused the penalty of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or, previously,
death.85

In Mercado v. People86

Where the Court of Appeals finds that the imposable penalty in a criminal
case brought to it on appeal is at least reclusion perpetua, death or life
imprisonment, then it should impose such penalty, refrain from entering
judgment thereon, certify the case and elevate the entire records to this
Court for review. This will obviate the unnecessary, pointless and time-
wasting shuttling of criminal cases between this Court and the Court of
Appeals, for by then this Court will acquire jurisdiction over the case from
the very inception and can, without bothering the Court of Appeals which
has fully completed the exercise of its jurisdiction, do justice in the case.

On the other hand, where the Court of Appeals imposes a penalty less than
reclusion perpetua, a review of the case may be had only by petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 where only errors or questions of law may
be raised.87 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)cralawlawlibrary

It is settled that in petitions for review on certiorari, only questions of law

are reviewed by this court.88 The rule that only questions of law may be
raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 is based on sound and practical
policy considerations stemming from the differing natures of a question of
law and a question of fact

A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct
application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the
issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact
exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of
facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering
mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of
specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and
to the whole, and the probability of the
situation.89ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary
Concomitantly, factual findings of the lower courts as affirmed by the Court
of Appeals are binding on this court.90

In contrast, an appeal in a criminal case "throws the whole case open for
review[.]"91 The underlying principle is that errors in an appealed judgment,
even if not specifically assigned, may be corrected motu propio by the court
if the consideration of these errors is necessary to arrive at a just resolution
of the case.92 Nevertheless, "the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor
a part of due process, it being merely a statutory privilege which may be
exercised only in the manner provided for by law[.]"93

II

Petitioner argues that the firearms found in his bag were not his. Thus, he
could not be liable for possessing the contraband. Key to the resolution of
this case is whether petitioner possessed firearms without the necessary
authorization from the Commission on Elections. Petitioner was charged
under special laws: Republic Act No. 8294 and Commission on Elections
Resolution No. 7764, in relation to Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.

The law applicable is Section 2(a) of Commission on Elections Resolution No.

7764, which provides

SECTION 2. Prohibitions. During the election period from January 14, 2007 it
shall be unlawful for

a. Any person, including those possessing a permit to carry firearms

outside of residence or place of business, to bear, carry or transport
firearms or other deadly weapons in public places including any
building, street, park, private vehicle or public conveyance. For the
purpose firearm includes airgun, while deadly weapons include hand
grenades or other explosives, except pyrotechnics[.]

Section 261 (q) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 states

Section 261. Prohibited Acts. - The following shall be guilty of an election

offense
....

(q) Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business. - Any person

who, although possessing a permit to carry firearms, carries any firearms
outside his residence or place of business during the election period, unless
authorized in writing by the Commission: Provided, That a motor vehicle,
water or air craft shall not be considered a residence or place of business or
extension hereof. (Par. (1), Id.)

This prohibition shall not apply to cashiers and disbursing officers while in
the performance of their duties or to persons who by nature of their official
duties, profession, business or occupation habitually carry large sums of
money or valuables.

For a full understanding of the nature of the constitutional rights involved,

we will examine three (3) points of alleged intrusion into the right to privacy
of petitioner: first, when petitioner gave his bag for x-ray scanning to port
authorities; second, when the baggage inspector opened petitioner's bag
and called the Port Authority Police; and third, when the police officer
opened the bag to search, retrieve, and seize the firearms and ammunition.

III

The first point of intrusion occurred when petitioner presented his bag for
inspection to port personnel—the x-ray machine operator and baggage
inspector manning the x-ray machine station.94 With regard to searches and
seizures, the standard imposed on private persons is different from that
imposed on state agents or authorized government authorities.

In People v. Marti,95 the private forwarding and shipping company, following

standard operating procedure, opened packages sent by accused Andre
Marti for shipment to Zurich, Switzerland and detected a peculiar odor from
the packages.96 The representative from the company found dried marijuana
leaves in the packages.97 He reported the matter to the National Bureau of
Investigation and brought the samples to the Narcotics Section of the
Bureau for laboratory examination.98 Agents from the National Bureau of
Investigation subsequently took custody of the illegal drugs.99 Andre Marti
was charged with and was found guilty of violating Republic Act No. 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.100

This court held that there was no unreasonable search or seizure.101 The
evidence obtained against the accused was not procured by the state acting
through its police officers or authorized government agencies.102 The Bill of
Rights does not govern relationships between individuals; it cannot be
invoked against the acts of private individuals103

If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must
generally be first secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality.
However, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of
a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at
bar, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against
unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of
private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts
committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged
unlawful intrusion by the government.104

Hence, by virtue of Marti, items seized pursuant to a reasonable search

conducted by private persons are not covered by the exclusionary rule.105

To determine whether the intrusion by the port personnel in this case was
committed by private or public persons, we revisit the history and
organizational structure of the Philippine Ports Authority.

Port security measures are consistent with the country's aim to develop
transportation and trade in conjunction with national and economic growth.
In 1974, the Philippine Ports Authority was created for the reorganization of
port administration and operation functions.106 The Philippine Ports
Authority's Charter was later revised through Presidential Decree No. 857.
The Revised Charter provided that the Authority may after consultation with
relevant Government agencies, make rules or regulations for the planning,
development, construction, maintenance, control, supervision and
management of any Port or Port District and the services to be provided
therein, and for the maintenance of good order therein, and generally for
carrying out the process of this Decree.107

The Philippine Ports Authority was subsequently given police authority

through Executive Order No. 513,108 which provides

Sec. 2. Section 6 is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph to read as

follows

Section 6-c. Police Authority - The Authority shall have such police authority
within the ports administered by it as may be necessary to carry out its
powers and functions and attain its purposes and objectives, without
prejudice to the exercise of the functions of the Bureau of Customs and
other law enforcement bodies within the area. Such police authority shall
include the following

a) To provide security to cargoes, port equipment, structure, facilities,

personnel and documents: Provided, however, That in ports of entry,
physical security to import and export cargoes shall be exercised jointly with
the Bureau of Customs;

b) To regulate the entry to, exit from, and movement within the port, of
persons and vehicles, as well as movement within the port of watercraft;

c) To maintain peace and order inside the port, in coordination with local
police authorities;

d) To supervise private security agencies operating within the port area; and

e) To enforce rules and regulations promulgated by the Authority pursuant

to law. (Emphasis supplied)

In 1992, the Cebu Port Authority was created to specifically administer all
ports located in the Province of Cebu.109 The Cebu Port Authority is a
"public-benefit corporation . . . under the supervision of the Department of
Transportation and Communications for purposes of policy
coordination."110 Control of the ports was transferred to the Cebu Port
Authority on January 1, 1996, when its operations officially began.111

In 2004, the Office for Transportation Security was designated as the "single
authority responsible for the security of the transportation systems [in] the
country[.]"112 Its powers and functions included providing security measures
for all transportation systems in the country

b. Exercise operational control and supervision over all units of law

enforcement agencies and agency personnel providing security services in
the transportation systems, except for motor vehicles in land transportation,
jointly with the heads of the bureaus or agencies to which the units or
personnel organically belong or are assigned;

c. Exercise responsibility for transportation security operations including, but

not limited to, security screening of passengers, baggage and cargoes, and
hiring, retention, training and testing of security screening personnel;

d. In coordination with the appropriate agencies and/or instrumentalities of

the government, formulate, develop, promulgate and implement
comprehensive security plans, policies, measures, strategies and programs
to ably and decisively deal with any threat to the security of transportation
systems, and continually review, assess and upgrade such security plans,
policies, measures, strategies and programs, to improve and enhance
transportation security and ensure the adequacy of these security measures;
e. Examine and audit the performance of transportation security personnel,
equipment and facilities, and, thereafter, establish, on a continuing basis,
performance standards for such personnel, equipment and facilities,
including for the training of personnel;

f. Prepare a security manual/master plan or programme which shall

prescribe the rules and regulations for the efficient and safe operation of all
transportation systems, including standards for security screening
procedures, prior screening or profiling of individuals for the issuance of
security access passes, and determination of levels of security clearances for
personnel of the OTS, the DOTC and its attached agencies, and other
agencies of the government;

g. Prescribe security and safety standards for all transportation systems in

accordance with existing laws, rules, regulations and international
conventions;

h. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of the DOTC, issue

Transportation Security Regulations/Rules and amend, rescind or revise such
regulations or rules as may be necessary for the security of the
transportation systems of the country[.]113 (Emphasis
supplied)cralawlawlibrary

The Cebu Port Authority has adopted security measures imposed by the
Office for Transportation Security, including the National Security
Programme for Sea Transport and Maritime Infrastructure.114

The Cebu Port Authority is clothed with authority by the state to oversee the
security of persons and vehicles within its ports. While there is a distinction
between port personnel and port police officers in this case, considering that
port personnel are not necessarily law enforcers, both should be considered
agents of government under Article III of the Constitution. The actions of
port personnel during routine security checks at ports have the color of a
state-related function.

In People v. Malngan,115 barangay tanod and the Barangay Chairman were

deemed as law enforcement officers for purposes of applying Article III of
the Constitution.116 In People v. Lauga,117 this court held that a "bantay
bayan," in relation to the authority to conduct a custodial investigation under
Article III, Section 12118 of the Constitution, "has the color of a state-related
function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his
constitutional rights[.]"119

Thus, with port security personnel's functions having the color of state-
related functions and deemed agents of government, Marti is inapplicable in
the present case. Nevertheless, searches pursuant to port security measures
are not unreasonable per se. The security measures of x-ray scanning and
inspection in domestic ports are akin to routine security procedures in
airports.

In People v. Suzuki,120 the accused "entered the pre-departure area of the

Bacolod Airport Terminal."121 He was "bound for Manila via flight No. 132 of
the Philippine Airlines and was carrying a small traveling bag and a box
marked 'Bongbong's piaya."122 The accused "proceeded to the 'walk through
metal detector,' a machine which produces a red light and an alarm once it
detects the presence of metallic substance or object."123 "Thereupon, the red
light switched on and the alarm sounded, signifying the presence of metallic
substance either in his person or in the box he was carrying."124 When the
accused was asked to open the content of the box, he answered "open,
open."125 Several packs of dried marijuana fruiting tops were then found
inside the box.126 Suzuki argued that the box was only given to him as
"pasalubong" by a certain Pinky, whom he had sexual relations with the
night before.127 He did not know the contents of the box.128

This court in Suzuki found that the search conducted on the accused was a
valid exception to the prohibition against warrantless searches as it was
pursuant to a routine airport security procedure129

It is axiomatic that a reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed

formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. Given the
circumstances obtaining here, we find the search conducted by the airport
authorities reasonable and, therefore, not violative of his constitutional
rights. Hence, when the search of the box of piaya revealed several
marijuana fruiting tops, appellant is deemed to have been caught
in flagrante delicto, justifying his arrest even without a warrant under
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The packs of
marijuana obtained in the course of such valid search are thus admissible as
evidence against appellant.130 (Citations omitted)

The reason behind it is that there is a reasonable reduced expectation of

privacy when coming into airports or ports of travel

Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by
exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a
lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport
security procedures. With increased concern over airplane hijacking and
terrorism has come increased security at the nation's airports. Passengers
attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their
carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-
ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious
objects, physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects
are. There is little question that such searches are reasonable, given their
minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests involved, and the
reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel. Indeed, travelers
are often notified through airport public address systems, signs and notices
in their airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if any prohibited
materials or substances are found, such would be subject to seizure. These
announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional
protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to
routine airport procedures.131 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

This rationale was reiterated more recently in Sales v. People.132 This court
in Sales upheld the validity of the search conducted as part of the routine
security check at the old Manila Domestic Airport—now Terminal 1 of the
Ninoy Aquino International Airport.133

Port authorities were acting within their duties and functions when it used x-
ray scanning machines for inspection of passengers' bags.134 When the
results of the x-ray scan revealed the existence of firearms in the bag, the
port authorities had probable cause to conduct a search of petitioner's bag.
Notably, petitioner did not contest the results of the x-ray scan.

IV

Was the search rendered unreasonable at the second point of intrusion—

when the baggage inspector opened petitioner's bag and called the attention
of the port police officer?

We rule in the negative.

The port personnel's actions proceed from the authority and policy to ensure
the safety of travelers and vehicles within the port. At this point, petitioner
already submitted himself and his belongings to inspection by placing his
bag in the x-ray scanning machine.

The presentation of petitioner's bag for x-ray scanning was voluntary.

Petitioner had the choice of whether to present the bag or not. He had the
option not to travel if he did not want his bag scanned or inspected. X-ray
machine scanning and actual inspection upon showing of probable cause that
a crime is being or has been committed are part of reasonable security
regulations to safeguard the passengers passing through ports or terminals.
Probable cause is reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to induce a cautious man to
believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged. It refers to
the existence of such facts and circumstances that can lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed,
and that the items, articles or objects sought in connection with said offense
or subject to seizure and destruction by law are in the place to be
searched.135

It is not too burdensome to be considered as an affront to an ordinary

person's right to travel if weighed against the safety of all passengers and
the security in the port facility.

As one philosopher said, the balance between authority and an individual's

liberty may be confined within the harm that the individual may cause
others. John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" provides

[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively,
in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-
protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent
harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient
warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be
better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the
opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good
reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading
him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any
evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is
desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else.
The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society,
is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his
independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and
mind, the individual is sovereign.136cralawlawlibrary

Any perceived curtailment of liberty due to the presentation of person and

effects for port security measures is a permissible intrusion to privacy when
measured against the possible harm to society caused by lawless persons.

A third point of intrusion to petitioner's right to privacy occurred during

petitioner's submission to port security measures. This court should
determine whether the requirements for a valid waiver against unreasonable
searches and seizures were met.

After detection of the firearms through the x-ray scanning machine and
inspection by the baggage inspector, Officer Abregana was called to inspect
petitioner's bag.

The Constitution safeguards a person's right against unreasonable searches

and seizures.137 A warrantless search is presumed to be
unreasonable.138 However, this court lays down the exceptions where
warrantless searches are deemed legitimate: (1) warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest; (2) seizure in "plain view"; (3) search of a
moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6)
stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances.139

In Caballes v. Court of Appeals140

In case of consented searches or waiver of the constitutional guarantee

against obtrusive searches, it is fundamental that to constitute a waiver, it
must first appear that (1) the right exists; (2) that the person involved had
knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; and
(3) the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.141

Petitioner anchors his case on the claim that he did not validly consent to the
search conducted by the port authorities. He argues that he did not have an
actual intention to relinquish his right against a warrantless search.

In cases involving the waiver of the right against unreasonable searches and
seizures, events must be weighed in its entirety. The trial court's findings
show that petitioner presented his bag for scanning in the x-ray
machine.142 When his bag went through the x-ray machine and the firearms
were detected, he voluntarily submitted his bag for inspection to the port
authorities

Prosecutor Narido

Q. What did he tell you?

A. I asked him if I can check his bag?

Q. What was his response?

A. He consented and cooperated. I checked the bag.143

It was after the port personnel's inspection that Officer Abregana's attention
was called and the bag was inspected anew with petitioner's consent.144

"[A]ppellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment of

witnesses' credibility by the trial court, because the latter was in a better
position to observe their demeanor and deportment on the witness stand."
We do not find anything erroneous as to the findings of fact of both the trial
court and the Court of Appeals.

There was probable cause that petitioner was committing a crime leading to
the search of his personal effects. As the trial court found

Given the circumstances obtaining here, the court finds the search
conducted by the port authorities reasonable and, therefore, not violative of
the accused's constitutional rights. Hence, when the search of the bag of the
accused revealed the firearms and ammunitions, accused is deemed to have
been caught in flagrante delicto, justifying his arrest even without a warrant
under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
firearms and ammunitions obtained in the course of such valid search are
thus admissible as evidence against [the] accused.146

Similar to the accused in People v. Kagui Malasugui174 and People v.

Omaweng148 who permitted authorities to search their persons and premises
without a warrant, petitioner is now precluded from claiming an invalid
warrantless search when he voluntarily submitted to the search on his
person. In addition, petitioner's consent to the search at the domestic port
was not given under intimidating or coercive circumstances.149

This case should be differentiated from that of Aniag, Jr. v. Commission on

Elections,150 which involved the search of a moving vehicle at a
checkpoint.151 In that case, there was no implied acquiescence to the search
since the checkpoint set up by the police authorities was conducted without
proper consultation, and it left motorists without any choice except to
subject themselves to the checkpoint

It may be argued that the seeming acquiescence of Arellano to the search

constitutes an implied waiver of petitioner's right to question the
reasonableness of the search of the vehicle and the seizure of the firearms.

While Resolution No. 2327 authorized the setting up of checkpoints, it

however stressed that "guidelines shall be made to ensure that no
infringement of civil and political rights results from the implementation of
this authority," and that "the places and manner of setting up of checkpoints
shall be determined in consultation with the Committee on Firearms Ban and
Security Personnel created under Sec. 5, Resolution No. 2323." The facts
show that PNP installed the checkpoint at about five o'clock in the afternoon
of 13 January 1992. The search was made soon thereafter, or thirty minutes
later. It was not shown that news of impending checkpoints without
necessarily giving their locations, and the reason for the same have been
announced in the media to forewarn the citizens. Nor did the informal
checkpoint that afternoon carry signs informing the public of the purpose of
its operation. As a result, motorists passing that place did not have any
inkling whatsoever about the reason behind the instant exercise. With the
authorities in control to stop and search passing vehicles, the motorists did
not have any choice but to submit to the PNP's scrutiny. Otherwise, any
attempt to turnabout albeit innocent would raise suspicion and provide
probable cause for the police to arrest the motorist and to conduct an
extensive search of his vehicle.

In the case of petitioner, only his driver was at the car at that time it was
stopped for inspection. As conceded by COMELEC, driver Arellano did not
know the purpose of the checkpoint. In the face of fourteen (14) armed
policemen conducting the operation, driver Arellano being alone and a mere
employee of petitioner could not have marshalled the strength and the
courage to protest against the extensive search conducted in the vehicle. In
such scenario, the "implied acquiescence," if there was any, could not be
more than a mere passive conformity on Arellano's part to the search, and
"consent" given under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent
within the purview of the constitutional guaranty.152 (Emphasis supplied,
citations omitted)cralawlawlibrary

We also cannot subscribe to petitioner's argument that there was no . valid

consent to the search because his consent was premised on his belief that
there were no prohibited items in his bag. The defendant's belief that no
incriminating evidence would be found does not automatically negate valid
consent to the search when incriminating items are found. His or her belief
must be measured against the totality of the circumstances.153 Again,
petitioner voluntarily submitted himself to port security measures and, as he
claimed during trial, he was familiar with the security measures since he had
been traveling back and forth through the sea port.

Consequently, we find respondent's argument that the present petition falls

under a valid consented search and during routine port security procedures
meritorious. The search conducted on petitioner's bag is valid.

VI

The consented search conducted on petitioner's bag is different from a

customs search.
Customs searches, as exception to the requirement of a valid search
warrant, are allowed when "persons exercising police authority under the
customs law . . . effect search and seizure ... in the enforcement of customs
laws."154 The Tariff and Customs Code provides the authority for such
warrantless search, as this court ruled in Papa, et at. v. Mago, et
al.155chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Code authorizes persons having police authority under Section 2203 of
the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through or search any land,
inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling house; and also
to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk,
package, box or envelope or any person on board, or stop and search and
examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any
dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law,
without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases.156 (Citation
omitted)
cralawlawlibrary

The ruling in Papa was echoed in Salvador v. People,157 in that the state's
policy to combat smuggling must not lose to the difficulties posed by the
debate on whether the state has the duty to accord constitutional protection
to dutiable articles on which duty has not been paid, as with a person's
papers and/or effects.158

Hence, to be a valid customs search, the requirements are: (1) the person/s
conducting the search was/were exercising police authority under customs
law; (2) the search was for the enforcement of customs law; and (3) the
place searched is not a dwelling place or house. Here, the facts reveal that
the search was part of routine port security measures. The search was not
conducted by persons authorized under customs law. It was also not
motivated by the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code or other customs
laws. Although customs searches usually occur within ports or terminals, it is
important that the search must be for the enforcement of customs laws.

VII

In violations of the Gun Ban, the accused must be "in possession of a

firearm . . . outside of his residence within the period of the election gun ban
imposed by the COMELEC sans authority[.]"159

In Abenes v. Court of Appeals,160 this court enumerated the elements for a

violation of the Gun Ban: "1) the person is bearing, carrying, or transporting
firearms or other deadly weapons; 2) such possession occurs during the
election period; and, 3) the weapon is carried in a public place."161 This court
also ruled that under the Omnibus Election Code, the burden to show that he
or she has a written authority to possess a firearm is on the accused.162

We find that the prosecution was able to establish all the requisites for
violation of the Gun Ban. The firearms were found inside petitioner's bag.
Petitioner did not present any valid authorization to carry the firearms
outside his residence during the period designated by the Commission on
Elections. He was carrying the firearms in the Cebu Domestic Port, which
was a public place.

However, petitioner raised the following circumstances in his defense: (1)

that he was a frequent traveler and was, thus, knowledgeable about the
security measures at the terminal; (2) that he left his bag with a porter for a
certain amount of time; and (3) that he voluntarily put his bag on the x-ray
machine for voluntary inspection. All these circumstances were left
uncontested by the prosecution.

This court is now asked to determine whether these circumstances are

sufficient to raise reasonable doubt on petitioner's guilt.

When petitioner claimed that someone planted the illegal firearms in his bag,
the burden of evidence to prove this allegation shifted to him. The shift in
the burden of evidence does not equate to the reversal of the presumption
of innocence. In People v. Villanueva,163 this court discussed the difference
between burden of proof and burden of evidence, and when the burden of
evidence shifts to the accused

Indeed, in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the onus to prove beyond
reasonable doubt not only the commission of the crime but likewise to
establish, with the same quantum of proof, the identity of the person or
persons responsible therefor. This burden of proof does not shift to the
defense but remains in the prosecution throughout the trial. However, when
the prosecution has succeeded in discharging the burden of proof by
presenting evidence sufficient to convince the court of the truth of the
allegations in the information or has established a prima facie case against
the accused, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused making it
incumbent upon him to adduce evidence in order to meet and nullify, if not
to overthrow, that prima facie case.164 (Emphasis supplied, citation
omitted)cralawlawlibrary

Petitioner failed to negate the prosecution's evidence that he had animus

possidendi or the intent to possess the illegal firearms. In People v. De
Gracia, this court elucidated on the concept of animus possidendi and the
importance of the intent to commit an act prohibited by law as differentiated
from criminal intent.166 The accused was charged with the qualified offense
of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion under Presidential
Decree No. 1866 resulting from the coup d'etat staged in 1989 by the
Reform Armed Forces Movement - Soldiers of the Filipino People.167 This
court held that the actions of the accused established his intent to possess
the illegal firearms

When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the
crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to
perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. Intent to commit the crime
and intent to perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A person may not
have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit
an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. In the
first (intent to commit the crime), there must be criminal intent; in the
second (intent to perpetrate the act) it is enough that the prohibited act is
done freely and consciously.

In the present case, a distinction should be made between criminal intent

and intent to possess. While mere possession, without criminal intent, is
sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm, it must still
be shown that there was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the
part of the accused. Such intent to possess is, however, without regard to
any other criminal or felonious intent which the accused may have harbored
in possessing the firearm. Criminal intent here refers to the intention of the
accused to commit an offense with the use of an unlicensed firearm. This is
not important in convicting a person under Presidential Decree No.
1866. Hence, in order that one may be found guilty of a violation of the
decree, it is sufficient that the accused had no authority or license to possess
a firearm, and that he intended to possess the same, even if such
possession was made in good faith and without criminal intent.

Concomitantly, a temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless possession or

control of a firearm cannot be considered a violation of a statute prohibiting
the possession of this kind of weapon, such as Presidential Decree No. 1866.
Thus, although there is physical or constructive possession, for as long as
the animus possidendi is absent, there is no offense committed.

Coming now to the case before us, there is no doubt in our minds that
appellant De Gracia is indeed guilty of having intentionally possessed several
firearms, explosives and ammunition without the requisite license or
authority therefor. Prosecution witness Sgt. Oscar Abenia categorically
testified that he was the first one to enter the Eurocar Sales Office when the
military operatives raided the same, and he saw De Gracia standing in the
room and holding the several explosives marked in evidence as Exhibits D to
D-4. At first, appellant denied any knowledge about the explosives. Then, he
alternatively contended that his act of guarding the explosives for and in
behalf of Col. Matillano does not constitute illegal possession thereof because
there was no intent on his part to possess the same, since he was merely
employed as an errand boy of Col. Matillano. His pretension of impersonal or
indifferent material possession does not and cannot inspire credence.

Animus possidendi is a state of mind which may be determined on a case to

case basis, taking into consideration the prior and coetaneous acts of the
accused and the surrounding circumstances. What exists in the realm of
thought is often disclosed in the range of action. It is not controverted that
appellant De Gracia is a former soldier, having served with the Philippine
Constabulary prior to his separation from the service for going on absence
without leave (AWOL). We do not hesitate, therefore, to believe and
conclude that he is familiar with and knowledgeable about the dynamites,
"molotov" bombs, and various kinds of ammunition which were confiscated
by the military from his possession. As a former soldier, it would be absurd
for him not to know anything about the dangerous uses and power of these
weapons. A fortiori, he cannot feign ignorance on the import of having in his
possession such a large quantity of explosives and ammunition.
Furthermore, the place where the explosives were found is not a military
camp or office, nor one where such items can ordinarily but lawfully be
stored, as in a gun store, an arsenal or armory. Even an ordinarily prudent
man would be put on guard and be suspicious if he finds articles of this
nature in a place intended to carry out the business of selling cars and which
has nothing to do at all, directly or indirectly, with the trade of firearms and
ammunition.168 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)cralawlawlibrary

The disquisition in De Gracia on the distinction between criminal intent and

intent to possess, which is relevant to convictions for illegal possession of
firearms, was reiterated in Del Rosario v. People.169 This court ruled that
"[i]n the absence of animus possidendi, the possessor of a Firearms incurs
no criminal liability.”170

In this case, petitioner failed to prove that his possession of the illegal
firearms seized from his bag was “temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless
possession[.]”171 As put by the trial court, petitioner’s claim that anyone
could have planted the firearms in his bag while it was unattended is
flimsy.172 There are dire consequences in accepting this claim at face value,
particularly that no one will be caught and convicted of illegal possession of
firearms.

Courts must also weigh the accused’s claim against the totality of the
evidence presented by the prosecution. This includes determination of: (1)
the motive of whoever allegedly planted the illegal firearms(s); (2) whether
there was opportunity to plant the illegal firearms(s); and (3)
reasonableness of the situation creating the opportunity.

Petitioner merely claims that someone must have planted the firearms when
he left his bag with the porter. He did not identify who this person could
have been and he did not state any motive for this person to plant the
firearms in his possession, even if there was indeed an opportunity to plant
the firearms.

However, this court is mindful that, owing to the nature of his work,
petitioner was a frequent traveler who is well-versed with port security
measure. We cannot accept that an average reasonable person aware of
travel security measures would leave his belongings with a stranger for a
relatively long period of time. Also, records show that petitioner had only (1)
bag. There was no evidence to show that a robust young man like petitioner
would have been need of the porter’s services. The defense did not identify
nor present this porter with whom petitioner left his bag.

VIII

The trial court was correct when it dismissed Criminal Case No. CBU-80084
for violation of Republic Act no. 8294, otherwise known as illegal possession
of firearms. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294 provides

SECTION 1. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is

hereby further amended to read as follows

SECTION 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or

Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to
be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. - The penalty
of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than
Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed upon any person who
shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any low
powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of
similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or
instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or
ammunition

Provided, That no other crime was committed. (Emphasis

supplied)cralawlawlibrary

Agote v. Judge Lorenzo173 already settled the question of whether there can
be a "separate offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition if
there is another crime committed[.]"174 In that case, the petitioner was
charged with both illegal possession of firearms and violation of the Gun Ban
under Commission on Elections Resolution No. 2826.175 This court acquitted
petitioner in the case for illegal possession of firearms since he
simultaneously violated the Gun Ban.176 This court also held that the
unlicensed firearm need not be actually used in the course of committing the
other crime for the application of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294.177

Similarly, Madrigal v. People178 applied the ruling in Agote and held that
Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294 is express in its terms that a person may
not be convicted for illegal possession of firearms if another crime was
committed.179

IX

We note that the trial court imposed the penalty of imprisonment for a
period of one (1) year and to suffer disqualification to hold public office and
deprivation of the right to suffrage. Under Section 264 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881, persons found guilty of an election offense "shall be punished with
imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six years and
shall not be subject to probation."180 The Indeterminate Sentence Law
applies to offenses punished by both the Revised Penal Code and special
laws.181

The penalty to be imposed is a matter of law that courts must follow. The
trial court should have provided minimum and maximum terms for
petitioner's penalty of imprisonment as required by the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.182 Accordingly, we modify the penalty imposed by the trial
court. Based on the facts, we deem it reasonable that petitioner be penalized
with imprisonment of one (1) year as minimum to two (2) years as
maximum.183

The records are unclear whether petitioner is currently detained by the state
or is out on bail. Petitioner's detention is relevant in determining whether he
has already served more than the penalty imposed upon him by the trial
court as modified by this court, or whether he is qualified to the credit of his
preventive imprisonment with his service of sentence.

Article 29184 of the Revised Penal Code states

ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of
imprisonment. - Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive
imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone
preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in
writing after being informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance of
counsel to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners, except in the following cases

1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or

more times of any crime; and

2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they
have failed to surrender voluntarily.

If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary
rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the
assistance of a counsel and shall be credited in the service of his sentence
with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive
imprisonment.

Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua

shall be deducted from thirty (30) years.

Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period

equal to the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to
which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be
released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial
thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review.
Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release
under this paragraph shall be the actual period of detention with good
conduct time allowance: Provided, however, That if the accused is absent
without justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, the court may motu
proprio order the rearrest of the accused: Provided, finally, That recidivists,
habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are
excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the maximum penalty to
which the accused may be sentenced is lestierro [sic], he shall be released
after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.cralawlawlibrary

In case credit of preventive imprisonment is due, petitioner must first signify

his agreement to the conditions set forth in Article 29 of the Revised Penal
Code.185 If petitioner has already served more than the penalty imposed
upon him by the trial court, then his immediate release from custody is in
order unless detained for some other lawful cause.186
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated
September 8, 2012 and the Resolution dated August 23, 2013 in CA-GR CEB
CR No. 01606 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Petitioner Erwin
Libo-On Dela Cruz is sentenced to imprisonment of one (1) year as minimum
to two (2) years as maximum in accordance with the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. The period of his preventive imprisonment shall be credited in
his favor if he has given his written conformity to abide by the disciplinary
rules imposed upon convicted prisoners in accordance with Article 29 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and if he is not out on bail.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Endnotes

1Rollo, pp. 8-21.

2Id. at 56-63. The case was docketed as CA-GR CEB CR. No. 01606. The
Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (Chair)
and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Zenaida T.
Galapate-Laguilles of the Special Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals Cebu.

3 Id. at 68-69. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul
L. Hernando and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos
(Chair) and Gabriel T. Ingles of the Special Former Special Twentieth
Division, Court of Appeals Cebu.

4 Id. at 17, Petition.

5 Id. at 63, Court of Appeals Decision.

6Id. at 23-31, Regional Trial Court's Consolidated Judgment. The

Consolidated Judgment was penned by Presiding Judge Estela Alma A.
Singco of Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City.

7 Rules and Regulations on: (A) Bearing, Carrying or Transporting Firearms

or Other Deadly Weapons; (B) Security Personnel or Bodyguards; (C)
Bearing Arms by any Member of Security or Police Organization of
Government Agencies and Other Similar Organization (D) Organization or
Maintenance of Reaction Forces during the Election Period in connection with
the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections.
8 Batas Blg. 881 (1985), sec. 261(q) provides

Section 261. Prohibited Acts. - The following shall be guilty of an election

offense

(q) Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business. -Any person

who, although possessing a permit to carry firearms, carries any firearms
outside his residence or place of business during the election period, unless
authorized in writing by the Commission: Provided, That a motor vehicle,
water or air craft shall not be considered a residence or place of business or
extension hereof. (Par. (1), Id.) This prohibition shall not apply to cashiers
and disbursing officers while in the performance of their duties or to persons
who by nature of their official duties, profession, business or occupation
habitually carry large sums of money or valuables.

9 Omnibus Election Code of The Philippines.

10 Rollo, p. 30, Regional Trial Court's Consolidated Judgment.

11Id. at 12, Petition, and 27, Regional Trial Court's Consolidated Judgment;
defense's version of the facts as summarized by the trial court.

12 Id. at 27, Regional Trial Court's Consolidated Judgment.

13Id. at 25 and 27, Regional Trial Court's Consolidated Judgment, and 58,
Court of Appeals Decision.

14 Id. at 27.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id. at 26-27.

18 Id. at 26.

19 Id.

20 Id.

21 Id.
22 Id.

23Id. at 58, Court of Appeals Decision. In the trial court's Consolidated

Judgment, the port personnel was named "Archie" Igot. The Court of
Appeals Decision refers to the port personnel as "Arcie" Igot.

24 Id.

25 Id.

26 Id.

27 Id.

28 Id. at 58-59.

29 Id. at 11, Petition, and 59, Court of Appeals Decision.

30 Id. at 59, Court of Appeals Decision.

31 Id.

32 Id. at 57.

33 Id.

34 Id. at 58.

35 Id.

36 Id. at 11, Petition, and 25, Regional Trial Court's Consolidated Judgment.

37 Id. at 30, Regional Trial Court's Consolidated Judgment, and 59-60, Court
of Appeals Decision.

38Id. at 30, Regional Trial Court's Consolidated Judgment, and 60, Court of
Appeals Decision. Id. at 27-28, Regional Trial Court's Consolidated
Judgment.

40 Id.

41 Id. at 28.

42 Id. at 25-28.
43 Id. at 29.

44 Id. at 28.

45 Id.

46 Id. at 29.

47 Id.

48 Id.

49 Id. at 60, Court of Appeals Decision.

50 Id. at 29, Regional Trial Court's Consolidated Judgment.

51 Id. at 30.

52 Id. at 30-31.

53 Id. at 63, Court of Appeals Decision.

54 Id. at 60-61.

55 Id. at 61.

56 Id. at 62.

57 Id.

58 Id. at 62-63.

59 Id. at 63.

60 Id. at 64-67.

61 Id. at 69, Court of Appeals Resolution.

62 Id. at 8, Petition.

63 Id. at 72.

64 Id. at 83-95.
65 Id. at 97.

66 Id. at 14, Petition.

67 Id.

68 Id.

69 Id. at 15.

70 Id.

71 Id.

72 Id.

73 Id. at 15-16.

74 Id. at 16.

75 Id. at 88 and 90-91, Comment.

76 Id. at 88.

77 Id.

78 Id. at 89-90.

79 Id. at 90.

80 Id. at 92, citing the Regional Trial Court's Consolidated Judgment, p. 6.

81 Id. at 92.

82 Id. at 92-93.

83 Id. at 14, Petition.

84RULES OF COURT, Rule 124, sec. 13, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC
dated September 28, 2004, provides

Sec. 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme Court.—(a)

Whenever the Court of Appeals finds that the penalty of death should be
imposed, the court shall render judgment but refrain from making an entry
of judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate its entire record to
the Supreme Court for review.

(b) Where the judgment also imposes a lesser penalty for offenses'
committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence
that gave rise to the more severe offense for which the penalty of death is
imposed, and the accused appeals, the appeal shall be included in the case
certified for review to the Supreme Court.

(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter judgment
imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme
Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.

See People v. Rocha, 558 Phil. 521, 530-535 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario,
Third Division], for a discussion on the difference between appeal for cases
involving imposition of life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua, and
automatic review for cases involving imposition of death penalty. See
also People v. Mateo, All Phil. 752, 768-773 (2004) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].

85See Republic Act No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
Death Penalty in the Philippines"

86441 Phil. 216 (2002) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division]. The case was
decided in 2002 before the amendment of the Rules in A.M. No. 00-5-3-SC
dated September 28, 2004.

87 Id. at 222-223.

88 RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 1 provides

SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.— A party desiring to

appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court
of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts
whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified
petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law
which must be distinctly set forth.

See Tan v. People, 604 Phil. 68, 78 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third
Division].

89Ruiz v. People, 512 Phil. 127, 135 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second
Division], citing Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 425 Phil. 752, 765-766 (2002)
[Per C.J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].

90SeePeople v. Cardenas, G R. No. 190342, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 827,
844-845 [Per J. Sereno (now C.J.), Second Division].

91People v. Galigao, 443 Phil. 246, 261 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En

Banc], citing People v. Tano, 387 Phil. 465, 478 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban,
En Banc] and People v. Castillo, 382 Phil. 499, 506 (2000) [Per J. Puno, En
Banc].

92People v. Galigao, 443 Phil. 246, 261 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En

Banc], citing People v. Pirame, 384 Phil. 286, 300 (2000) [Per J.
Quisumbing, Second Division].

93People v. Judge Laguio, Jr., 547 Phil. 296, 309 (2007) [Per J. Garcia, First
Division].

94Rollo, p. 28, Regional Trial Court's Consolidated Judgment.

95 271 Phil. 51 (1991) [Per J. Bidin, Third Division].

96 Id. at 54-55.

97 Id. at 55.

98 Id.

99 Id.

100 Id. at 56.

101 Id. at 60.

102 Id.

103 Id. at 61.

104 Id. at 62.

105Id. at 58. See Stonehill, et al. v. Diokno, et al, 126 Phil. 738 (1967) [Per
C.J. Concepcion, En Banc]. In People v. Alicando, 321 Phil. 656, 690-691
(1995) [Per J. Puno, En Banc], this court explained the doctrine of fruit of
the poisonous tree as adopted in this jurisdiction: "We have not only
constitutionalized the Miranda warnings in our jurisdiction. We have also
adopted the libertarian exclusionary rule known as the 'fruit of the poisonous
tree,' a phrase minted by Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter in the celebrated case
of Nardone v. United States. According to this rule, once the primary source
(the 'tree') is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or
derivative evidence (the 'fruit') derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated
otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal
act, whereas the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' is the indirect result of the
same illegal act. The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' is at least once removed
from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is
based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should
not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained
evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained. We applied this
exclusionary rule in the recent case of People vs. Salanga, et al., a ponencia
of Mr. Justice Regalado. Salanga was the appellant in the rape and killing of
a 15-year old barrio lass. He was, however, illegally arrested. Soldiers took
him into custody. They gave him a body search which yielded a lady's
underwear. The underwear was later identified as that of the victim. We
acquitted Salanga. Among other reasons, we ruled that 'the underwear
allegedly taken from the appellant is inadmissible in evidence, being a so-
called fruit of the poisonous tree.'"

106See Pres. Decree No. 505 (1974), entitled Providing for the
Reorganization of Port Administration and Operation Functions in the
Country, Creating the Philippine Port Authority, Paving the Way for the
Establishment of Individual, Autonomous Port/Industrial Zone Authorities in
the Different Port Districts, and for Other Purposes.

107 Pres. Decree No. 857 (1974), art. VIII, sec. 26(a).

108Exec. Order No. 513 (1978) is entitled Reorganizing the Philippine Ports
Authority.

109See Rep. Act No. 7621 (1992), entitled An Act Creating the Cebu Port
Authority Defining its Powers and Functions, Providing Appropriation
therefor, and for Other Purposes.

110 Rep. Act No. 7621 (1992), sec. 3.

111See Cebu Port Authority, Corporate Profile, History (visited September 1,

2015).

112See Exec. Order No. 311 (2004), entitled Designating the Office for
Transportation Security as the Single Authority Responsible for the Security
of the Transportation Systems of the Country, Expanding its Powers and
Functions and for Other Purposes. See also Exec. Order No. 277 (2004).

113 Exec. Order No. 311 (2004), sec. 2.

114SeeCebu Port Authority Admin. Order No. 04 (2008) (visited September

1, 2015).

115534 Phil. 404 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc]. This case applied
the ruling in Marti on the inapplicability of the Bill of Rights against private
individuals. However, it found that barangay tanod and
the Barangay Chairman are law enforcement officers for purposes of
applying Article III, Section 12(1) and (3) of the Constitution.

116 Id. at 439.

117 629 Phil. 522 (2010) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].

118 CONST., art. III, sec. 12 provides

SECTION 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and
to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If
the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means

which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17

hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families.

119People v. Lauga, 629 Phil. 522, 531 (2010) [Per J. Perez, Second
Division].

120G.R. No. 120670, October 23,2003,414 SCRA 43 [Per J. Sandoval-

Gutierrez, En Bane].

121 Id. at 45.

122 Id.

123 Id. at 46.

124 Id.

125 Id.

126 Id.

127 Id. at 47.

128 Id.

129 Id. at 53.

130 Id. at 56-57.

131 Id. at 53-54.

132 G.R. No. 191023, February 6, 2013, 690 SCRA 141 [Per J. Villarama, Jr.,
First Division].

133 Id. at 145 and 152.

134 Police authority has been delegated to different government agencies and
instrumentalities through law. See Tariff Code, sec. 2203; Pres. Decree No.
1716-A (1980), entitled Further Amending Presidential Decree No. 66 dated
November 20, 1972, Creating the Export Processing Zone Authority, sec. 7;
and Exec. Order No. 903 (1983), entitled Providing for a Revision of
Executive Order No. 778 Creating the Manila International Airport Authority,
Transferring Existing Assets of the Manila International Airport to the
Authority, and Vesting the Authority with Power to Administer and Operate
the Manila International Airport. See also Salvador v. People, 502 Phil. 60
(2005) [Per J. Sandoval- Gutierrez, Third Division]; Pads v. Pamaran, 155
Phil. 17 (1974) [Per J. Fernando, Second Division]; Manikad, et al. v.
Tanodbayan, et al., 212 Phil. 669 (1984) [Per J. Escolin, En Banc];
and Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals, 528 Phil. 181
(2006) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].

135People v. Mariacos, 635 Phil. 315, 329 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second
Division], citing People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 880 (1998) [Per J. Romero,
Third Division], citing in turn People v. Encinada, 345 Phil. 301, 317 (1997)
[Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].

136 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (visited September 1, 2015).

137 CONST., art. Ill, sec. 2 provides

SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

138See People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].

139See People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014, 731 SCRA 427,
440-441 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]. See also Villanueva v. People, G.R.
No. 199042, November 17, 2014 5 [Per C.J. Sereno, First Division].

140 424 Phil. 263 (2002) [Per J. Puno, First Division].

141 Id. at 289. See People v. Figueroa, 390 Phil. 561 (2000) [Per C.J. Davide,
First Division].

142Rollo, pp. 26-28, Regional Trial Court's Consolidated Judgment.

143 Id. at 28.

144 Id. at 25-27.

145People v. Lacerna, 344 Phil. 100, 124 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third
Division].

146Rollo, p. 28, Regional Trial Court's Consolidated Judgment.

63 Phil. 221 (1936) [Per J. Diaz, En Banc], citing I THOMAS COOLEY,

147

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS 631 (8th ed.).

G.R. No. 99050, September 2, 1992, 213 SCRA 462, 470-471 [Per J.
148

Davide, Jr., Third Division].

149See Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 263, 289 (2002) [Per J. Puno,
First Division].
150G.R. No. 104961, October 7, 1994,237 SCRA424 [Per J. Bellosillo, En
Banc].

151 Id. at 429.

152 Id. at 436-437.

153See Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 263, 286 (2002) [Per J. Puno,
First Division].

154Papa, et al v. Mago, et al, 130 Phil. 886, 902 (1968) [Per J. Zaldivar, En
Banc].

155 130 Phil. 886 (1968) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc].

156 Id. at 901-902.

157 502 Phil. 60 (2005) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division].

158 Id. at 72.

159SeeEscalante v. People, G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA

362, 373 [Per J. Reyes, First Division].

160 544 Phil. 614 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division]. In this
case, the accused was convicted of violating the Gun Ban but was acquitted
of violating Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Id. at 634). This court held:
"While the prosecution was able to establish the fact that the subject firearm
was seized by the police from the possession of the petitioner, without the
latter being able to present any license or permit to possess the same, such
fact alone is not conclusive proof that he was not lawfully authorized to carry
such firearm. In other words, such fact does not relieve the prosecution from
its duty to establish the lack of a license or permit to carry the firearm by
clear and convincing evidence, like a certification from the government
agency concerned" (Id. at 631).

161Id. at 633. Abenes involved the Commission on Elections' imposed Gun

Ban through Rep. Act No. 7166 (1991), sec. 32, which is substantially the
same with COMELEC Resolution No. 7764 (2006), sec. 2, in relation to Batas
Blg. 881 (1985), sec. 261.

162 Id. at 632.

163 536 Phil. 998 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].

164 Id. at 1003-1004.

165G.R. Nos. 102009-10, July 6, 1994, 233 SCRA716 [Per J. Regalado,

Second Division].

166 Id. at 726-727.

167 Id. at 720-721.

168 Id. at 726-728.

169Del Rosario v. People, 410 Phil. 642, 664 (2001) [Per J. Pardo, First
Division].

170 Id.

171People v. De Gracia, G.R. Nos. 102009-10, July 6, 1994, 233 SCRA 716,
727 [Per J. Regalado, Second Division].

172Rollo, p. 29 Regional Trial Court’s Consolidated Judgment.

173 502 Phil. 318 (2005) [Per J. Garcia, En Banc].

174 Id. at 332.

175 Id. at 323-324.

176 Id. at 335.

177 Id. at 331-334.

178 584 Phil. 241 (2008) [Per J. Corona, First Division].

179 Id. at 245.

180 Batas Blg. 881 (1985), sec. 264 provides

SECTION 264. Penalties. - Any person found guilty of any election offense
under this Code shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than one
year but not more than six years and shall not be subject to probation. In
addition, the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold
public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. If he is a foreigner, he
shall be sentenced to deportation which shall be enforced after the prison
term has been served. Any political party found guilty shall be sentenced to
pay a fine of not less than ten thousand pesos, which shall be imposed upon
such party after criminal action has been instituted in which their
corresponding officials have been found guilty.

181See Uriarte v. People, 540 Phil. 477, 501 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First
Division] and People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA
555, 579-581 [Per J. Regalado, En Banc].

182ActNo. 4103(1933), sec. 1, as amended by Act No. 4225 (1935), sec. 1,

provides

SEC. 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by

the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the
accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be
that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly
imposed under the rules of the said Code, and to a minimum which shall be
within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for
the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum
shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

See Escalante v. People, G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA 362,
374 [Per J. Reyes, First Division].

183In Abenes v. Court of Appeals, 544 Phil. 614, 634 (2007) [Per J. Austria-
Martinez, Third Division], this court imposed the indeterminate sentence of
one (1) year of imprisonment as minimum to two (2) years of imprisonment
as maximum. In Madrigal v. People, 584 Phil. 241, 245 (2008) [Per J.
Corona, First Division], the accused was "sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from one year as minimum to three
years as maximum[.]"

184 As amended by Rep. Act No. 10592 (2012), sec. 1.

185Peoplev. Oloverio, G.R. No. 211159, March 28, 2015

<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/
march2015/211159.pdf>17-18 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]

186Agote v. Judge Lorenzo, 502 Phil. 318, 335 (2005) [Per J. Garcia, En
Banc].