FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 116001. March 14, 2001.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . LUISITO GO y KO

alias "KING LOUIE" , accused-appellant.

[G.R. No. 123943. March 14, 2001.]

LUISITO GO y CO , petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES , respondent.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p

On October 22, 1992, at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, SPO1 Mauro Piamonte
and SPO3 Candido Liquido, members of the Intelligence and Follow-up Unit of the Calamba
Police, went to the police outpost at Crossing, Calamba, Laguna, to follow up an
intelligence report that methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, a regulated drug, was
being supplied there. Police civilian agent Ronnie Panuringan arrived and reported to them
that he saw accused-appellant Luisito Go, also known as "King Louie", enter the Flamingo
Disco House with two women. Panuringan said that he spotted a gun tucked in accused-
appellant's waist. Together, the three policemen proceeded to the Flamingo, which was
located about a hundred meters away from the outpost.
When they arrived at the Flamingo, the police o cers informed the owner that they
were conducting an "Operation Bakal," whereby they search for illegally possessed
rearms. The owner allowed them in and told a waiter to accompany them. They went up
to the second oor of the disco. The waiter turned on the lights, and the police o cers
saw accused-appellant and his lady companions seated at a table. They identi ed
themselves and asked accused-appellant to stand up. When the later did so, the policemen
saw the gun tucked in his waist. SPO1 Piamonte asked for the license of the gun, but
accused-appellant was unable to produce any. Instead, accused-appellant brought out the
driver's license of a certain Tan Antonio Lerios. SPO1 Piamonte con scated the gun, which
was later identi ed as a 9mm Walther P88, Serial Number 006784, with a magazine
containing ten (10) rounds of live ammunition. Accused-appellant was invited to the police
precinct for questioning.
On the way out of the disco, accused-appellant asked permission to bring his car,
which was parked outside. The police o cers accompanied accused-appellant to his car,
a Honda Civic with license plate number TCM-789. Through the windshield, SPO3 Liquido
noticed a Philippine National Police identi cation card hanging from the rearview mirror.
He asked accused-appellant if he was a member of the PNP, and he said no. The police
o cers asked accused-appellant for his driver's license and the registration papers of the
vehicle, but he was unable to produce them. When accused-appellant opened the door,
SPO3 Liquido took the ID card and found that the same belonged to SPO4 Zenaida
Bagadiong. The police o cers saw pieces of glass tooters and tin foils on the backseat
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 and oor of the car. They asked accused-appellant why he had these items, but he did not
say anything. Instead, accused-appellant suggested that they talk the matter over, and
intimated that he had money. SPO3 Liquido replied that they should talk at the police
headquarters. Accused-appellant took out an attaché case from the car and opened it.
There were two black clutch bags inside. Accused-appellant opened the rst bag, which
contained shiny white substance wrapped in cellophane. The second bag contained
P120,000.00 in cash.
The police o cers brought accused-appellant to the police station. When they
arrived at the precinct, they turned over the attaché case together with the two black clutch
bags to the investigator. The investigator found eight cellophane bags containing granules
suspected to be shabu in one of the clutch bags. When the attaché case was opened, the
police o cers found that it also contained three glass tooters, tin foils, an improvised
burner, magazines and newspapers. 1
Consequently, two Informations were led against accused-appellant before the
Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 34. The rst Information, which was
docketed as Criminal Case No. 3308-92-C, charged accused-appellant with violation of
Article III of R.A. 6452 (Dangerous Drugs Act), committed as follows:
That on or about October 22, 1992 at Brgy. I, Crossing, Municipality of
Calamba, province of Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, not being authorized/permitted by law, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and
custody 750 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride known as "SHABU", a
regulated drug, in violation of the above-stated law. 2

The other Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 3309-92-C, charged accused-
appellant with violation of P.D. 1866, committed as follows:
That on or about October 22, 1992, at Flamingo Beerhouse, Crossing,
Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused above-named not being licensed or authorized by
law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,
custody and control one (1) caliber .9mm marked "WALTHER" with serial number
006784 with one (1) magazine loaded with ten (10) live ammunition of same
caliber, in violation of the aforementioned law. 3

After a joint trial, the lower court rendered judgment convicting accused-appellant in
the two criminal cases, to wit: HTacDS

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered nding the accused in Criminal

Case No. 3308-92-C, to be GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of having in his
possession of 750.39 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated
drug. He is hereby sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and
one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a ne of TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00)
PESOS; and in Criminal Case No. 3309-92-C, the accused is also found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm, and is
hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua.

Considering that the accused appears to be detained at the Makati Police

Station, jailer, Makati Police Station is hereby ordered to commit the accused to
the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Correction, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. The bond
posted by the accused in Criminal Cases No. 3308-92-C & 3309-92-C, are hereby
ordered cancelled. 4
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Accused-appellant appealed his conviction in Criminal Case No. 3309-92-C directly
to this Court, considering that the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, which appeal
was docketed as G.R. No. 116001.
On the other hand, accused-appellant brought his appeal of the judgment in Criminal
Case No. 3308-92-C before the Court of Appeals. 5 In an Amended Decision dated
February 21, 1996, the Court of Appeals a rmed accused-appellant's conviction but
modi ed the penalty imposed by the trial court by sentencing him, in addition to
imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, to pay a ne of six
thousand pesos (P6,000.00), citing Section 8 of R.A. 6425, with subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency. 6 Hence, this petition for review, docketed as G.R. No. 123943.
The two cases were consolidated. 7
Accused-appellant assails the validity of his arrest and his subsequent convictions
for the two crimes. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that the arrest and
subsequent seizure were legal. A review of the records at bar shows no reason to depart
therefrom.
The constitutional proscription, that no person shall be arrested without any warrant
of arrest having been issued prior thereto, 8 is not a hard-and-fast rule. The Rules of Court
and jurisprudence recognize exceptional cases where an arrest may be effected without a
warrant. 9 Among these are when, in the presence of a peace o cer, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; or
when an offense has in fact just been committed, and the arresting o cer has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
In the cases at bar, the police saw the gun tucked in appellant's waist when he stood
up. The gun was plainly visible. No search was conducted as none was necessary.
Accused-appellant could not show any license for the rearm, whether at the time of his
arrest or thereafter. Thus, he was in effect committing a crime in the presence of the police
o cers. No warrant of arrest was necessary in such a situation, it being one of the
recognized exceptions under the Rules.
As a consequence of appellant's valid warrantless arrest, he may be lawfully
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
commission of an offense, without a search warrant, as provided in Rule 126, Section 12.
This is a valid search incidental to the lawful arrest. 1 0 The subsequent discovery in his car
of drug paraphernalia and the crystalline substance, which was later identi ed as shabu,
though in a distant place from where the illegal possession of rearm was committed,
cannot be said to have been made during an illegal search. As such, the seized items do
not fall within the exclusionary clause, which states that any evidence obtained in violation
of the right against warrantless arrest cannot be used for any purposes in any proceeding.
1 1 Hence, not being fruits of the poisonous tree, so to speak, the objects found at the
scene of the crime, such as the rearm, the shabu and the drug paraphernalia, can be used
as evidence against appellant. Besides, it has been held that drugs discovered as a result
of a consented search is admissible in evidence. 1 2
Under P.D. 1866, the essence of the crime is the accused's lack of license or permit
to carry or possess rearm, ammunition, or explosive. Possession by itself is not
prohibited by law. 1 3 In prosecutions for illegal possession of rearm, the element of
absence of license to possess the rearm may be established through the testimony of or
a certi cation from representative of the Firearms and Explosives Bureau 1 4 of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Philippine National Police (FEB-PNP), attesting that a person is not a licensee of any
rearm. 1 5 In this case, a representative of the FEB-PNP testi ed that accused-appellant
was not a holder of any gun license. 1 6 Moreover, a certi cation 1 7 to that effect was
presented to corroborate his testimony. These pieces of evidence su ce to establish the
second element of the offense of possession of unlicensed rearms. 1 8 However, in a vain
attempt to exculpate himself, accused-appellant presented for the rst time an alleged
rearm license, which was described as "Annex 2" of his petition. Accused-appellant's
counsel admitted that said document was not presented below "for some reason." 1 9
Whatever those reasons are, he did not specify. The document, however, is dubious. It is
too late in the day for accused-appellant to proffer this very vital piece of evidence which
might exculpate him. First, the reception of evidence is best addressed to the trial court
because it entails questions of fact. It should be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of
facts. 2 0 Second, the document marked as "Annex 2" of the petition in G.R. No. 123943 is
not the license referred to, but an order of the trial court resetting the date of arraignment.
2 1 Third , there is attached to the petition a rearm license 2 2 which is a mere photocopy
and, as such, cannot be appreciated by this Court. Indeed, considering that this was the
one piece of evidence which could spell accused-appellant's acquittal of the unlicensed
rearm charge, and assuming that, as shown in the face of the license, it was issued on
October 7, 1992, there should be no reason for its non-production during the trial. Fourth,
and most importantly, the genuineness of the purported license becomes all the more
suspect in view of the Certi cation issued by the FEO-PNP that accused-appellant was not
a licensed firearm holder.
Anent the certi cation issued by the FEO-PNP to the effect that Luisito Go y Ko was
not a licensed gun holder, accused-appellant claims that he was not the person alluded to
therein because the correct spelling of his middle name is not "Ko" but "Co." Whatever the
correct spelling of his name is, the fact remains that he had no license on the day the gun
was found in his possession. All that he could present then was a photocopy of his
application for gun license, 2 3 which is not the equivalent of a license. Appellant testi ed
that he presented a rearm license to the police, 2 4 but he could not produce that alleged
license in court. If appellant was indeed a licensed gun holder and if that license existed on
October 22, 1992, he could have easily presented it to the police when he was asked for
his papers inside the disco, or if the alleged license was in his car, he could have easily
shown it to them when they went to his car. Otherwise, he could have easily asked his
lawyer or relative to bring the license to the police precinct when he was being
investigated. Despite several opportunities to produce a license, he failed to do so. In fact,
during trial, he never presented any such license. And on appeal, he could only submit for
the rst time and for unknown reasons an alleged photocopy of a purported license. The
only plausible conclusion that can be drawn is that there was no such license in the rst
place. Hence, his guilt of illegal possession of firearm was duly established.
Accused-appellant's guilt for illegal possession of shabu has likewise been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. The white crystalline substance found in his possession, upon
laboratory examination, were positively identi ed as methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu, a regulated drug. 2 5
The bulk of accused-appellant's defense revolves around the factual ndings of the
trial court. It should be recalled that factual ndings of the trial court, if supported by
evidence on record, and particularly when a rmed by the appellate court, are binding on
this Court. 2 6 As discussed above, the records substantiate the trial court's and the
appellate court's ndings as to accused-appellant's culpability. There is no reason to
depart from these ndings as no signi cant facts and circumstances were shown to have
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 been overlooked or disregarded which, if considered, would have altered the outcome of
the case. 2 7 Moreover, questions as to credibility of witness are matters best left to the
appreciation of the trial court because of its unique opportunity of having observed that
elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while
testifying, which opportunity is denied to the reviewing tribunal. 2 8
In the case at bar, the trial court found: cHTCaI

The narration of the incident by the police is far more worthy of belief
coming as it does from law enforcers who are presumed to have regularly
performed their duties and were not demonstrated to have been unduly biased
against the accused. 2 9

Similarly, the Court of Appeals held that:

(T)he ndings of fact of the trial court are generally respected by the
appellate court, unless they are found to be clearly biased or arbitrary. We do not
find any in these cases. 3 0

The crime of illegal possession of rearm, committed in 1992, regardless of

whether the rearm is low powered or high powered, was punished with the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death, as provided in P.D. 1866. H owever, under R.A. No. 8294, which
took effect on July 6, 1997, 3 1 the penalty was lowered to prision correccional in its
maximum period and a ne of P30,000.00, if the rearm 3 2 is classi ed as low powered. In
this case, the unlicensed rearm found in appellant's possession was a 9mm Walther
pistol, which under the amendatory law, is considered as low powered. Inasmuch as the
new law imposes a reduced penalty and is, thus, more favorable to accused-appellant, the
same may be given retroactive effect. 3 3 Therefore, accused-appellant is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as maximum, and a fine of P30,000.00.
On the other hand, the crime of illegal possession of regulated drug, under the law in
force at the time of the commission of the offense in this case, was punished by
imprisonment of from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a ne ranging
from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00, 3 4 regardless of the amount of drugs involved. Hence,
accused-appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1)
day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P12,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court nding accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal possession of rearm is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION
that he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one
(1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1)
day of prision correccional, as maximum, and a ne of P30,000.00. The decision of the trial
court nding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of
750.39 grams of shabu and drug paraphernalia, is likewise AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one
(1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a ne of P12,000.00.
The shabu and subject drug paraphernalia seized from appellant shall be destroyed as
provided by law.
SO ORDERED. caAICE

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Footnotes

1. Rollo, G.R. No. 123943, pp. 194-197.

2. Rollo, G.R. No. 116001, p. 18.
3. Ibid.
4. Decision dated April 15, 1994; penned by Judge Francisco Ma. Guerrero; RTC Records, p.
81.

5. CA-G.R. CR No. 16163.

6. Rollo, G.R. No. 123943, p. 214.

7 Rollo, G.R. No. 116001, p. 121.
8. 1987 Constitution, Article III, 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.

9. Rule 113, Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.
10. People v. Lua, 256 SCRA 539 (1996).
11. Constitution, Article III, Section 3(2) — Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

12. People v. Cuizon, 326 Phil. 345.

13. People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 131619-20, February 1, 2000.
14. Formerly Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO).
15. Cadua v. CA and People, G.R. No. 123123, August 19, 1999; People v. Tobias, 334 Phil.
881; Rosales v. CA, 255 SCRA 123 [1996]; People v. Orehuela, 232 SCRA 82 (1994);
Mallari v. CA and People, 265 SCRA 456 (1996) citing People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255
(1996).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 16. TSN, June 22, 1993, p. 16.

17. Exhibit "A", Folder of Exhibits.

18. Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 402 (1997); Rosales v. CA, 255 SCRA 123 (1996);
People v. Orehuela, 232 SCRA 82 (1994).
19. Footnote 16 of the Petition for Certiorari, G.R. No. 123943, p. 17; Rollo, p. 25, 171.
20. Ceremionia v. CA, G.R. No. 103453, September 21, 1999.
21. Rollo, G.R. No. 123943, pp. 136-138.
22. Ibid., p. 187.
23. TSN, August 10, 1993, pp. 15-16.
24. TSN, August 10, 1993, p. 25.
25. Chemistry Report No. D-472-92 of the Crime Laboratory Service of the PNP in Camp
Vicente Lim, Laguna — Exhibit "B", Folder of Exhibits.
26. Romago Electric v. CA, G.R. No. 125947, June 8, 2000, See also — People v. Gayomma,
G.R. No. 128129, September 30, 1999.
27. Dizon v. CA, 311 SCRA 1 (1999); People v. Auxtero, 351 Phil. 1001.
28. People v. Silvano, 309 SCRA 362 (1999); People v. Dizon, 309 SCRA 669 (1999).
29. RTC Decision, p. 21.

30. CA Decision, p. 12; Rollo in G.R. No. 123943, p. 204.

31. People v. Macoy, Jr, G.R. No. 126253, August 16, 2000; People v. Lazaro, G.R. No.
112090, October 26, 1999.

32. In case of explosives, the penalty is higher as provided in Section 3, R.A. 8294.
33. People v. Reynaldo Langit, G.R. No. 134757-58, August 4, 2000; People v. Castillo, G.R.
No. 131592, February 15, 2000.
34. Section 16, R.A. 6425, as amended by B.P. Blg. 179.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com