Republic of the Philippines without first having secured the necessary license/permit

SUPREME COURT issued by the proper authorities.

Manila
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
THIRD DIVISION
When arraigned, Valeroso pleaded "not guilty." 5 Trial on the
G.R. No. 164815               September 3, 2009 merits ensued.

SR. INSP. JERRY C. VALEROSO, Petitioner,  During trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses: Senior
vs. Police Officer (SPO)2 Antonio Disuanco (Disuanco) of the
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE Criminal Investigation Division of the Central Police District
PHILIPPINES, Respondents. Command; and Epifanio Deriquito (Deriquito), Records Verifier
of the Firearms and Explosives Division in Camp Crame. Their
RESOLUTION testimonies are summarized as follows:

NACHURA, J.: On July 10, 1996, at around 9:30 a.m., Disuanco received a

Dispatch Order from the desk officer directing him and three
For resolution is the Letter-Appeal 1 of Senior Inspector (Sr. (3) other policemen to serve a Warrant of Arrest, issued by
Insp.) Jerry C. Valeroso (Valeroso) praying that our February Judge Ignacio Salvador, against Valeroso for a case of
22, 2008 Decision2 and June 30, 2008 Resolution 3 be set aside kidnapping with ransom.6
and a new one be entered acquitting him of the crime of illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition. After a briefing, the team conducted the necessary surveillance
on Valeroso checking his hideouts in Cavite, Caloocan, and
The facts are briefly stated as follows: Bulacan. Eventually, the team members proceeded to the
Integrated National Police (INP) Central Police Station in
Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw Valeroso about to board a
Valeroso was charged with violation of Presidential Decree No.
tricyle. Disuanco and his team approached Valeroso. They put
1866, committed as follows:
him under arrest, informed him of his constitutional rights, and
bodily searched him. They found a Charter Arms revolver,
That on or about the 10th day of July, 1996, in Quezon City, bearing Serial No. 52315, with five (5) pieces of live
Philippines, the said accused without any authority of law, did ammunition, tucked in his waist.7
then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in
his/her possession and under his/her custody and control
Valeroso was then brought to the police station for questioning.
Upon verification in the Firearms and Explosives Division in
One (1) cal. 38 "Charter Arms" revolver bearing serial no. Camp Crame, Deriquito presented a certification 8 that the
52315 with five (5) live ammo. subject firearm was not issued to Valeroso, but was licensed in
the name of a certain Raul Palencia Salvatierra of Sampaloc, On petition for review, we affirmed 17 in full the CA decision.
Manila.9 Valeroso filed a Motion for Reconsideration 18 which was denied
with finality19 on June 30, 2008.
On the other hand, Valeroso, SPO3 Agustin R. Timbol, Jr.
(Timbol), and Adrian Yuson testified for the defense. Their Valeroso is again before us through this Letter-
testimonies are summarized as follows: Appeal20 imploring this Court to once more take a
contemplative reflection and deliberation on the case, focusing
On July 10, 1996, Valeroso was sleeping inside a room in the on his breached constitutional rights against unreasonable
boarding house of his children located at Sagana Homes, search and seizure.21
Barangay New Era, Quezon City. He was awakened by four
(4) heavily armed men in civilian attire who pointed their guns Meanwhile, as the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) failed
at him and pulled him out of the room. 10 The raiding team tied to timely file its Comment on Valeroso’s Motion for
his hands and placed him near the faucet (outside the room) Reconsideration, it instead filed a Manifestation in Lieu of
then went back inside, searched and ransacked the room. Comment.22
Moments later, an operative came out of the room and
exclaimed, "Hoy, may nakuha akong baril sa loob!" 11 In its Manifestation, the OSG changed its previous position and
now recommends Valeroso’s acquittal. After a second look at
Disuanco informed Valeroso that there was a standing warrant the evidence presented, the OSG considers the testimonies of
for his arrest. However, the raiding team was not armed with a the witnesses for the defense more credible and thus
search warrant.12 concludes that Valeroso was arrested in a boarding house.
More importantly, the OSG agrees with Valeroso that the
Timbol testified that he issued to Valeroso a Memorandum subject firearm was obtained by the police officers in violation
Receipt13 dated July 1, 1993 covering the subject firearm and of Valeroso’s constitutional right against illegal search and
its ammunition, upon the verbal instruction of Col. Angelito seizure, and should thus be excluded from the evidence for the
Moreno.14 prosecution. Lastly, assuming that the subject firearm was
admissible in evidence, still, Valeroso could not be convicted of
On May 6, 1998, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 97, the crime, since he was able to establish his authority to
Quezon City, convicted Valeroso as charged and sentenced possess the gun through the Memorandum Receipt issued by
him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two his superiors.
(2) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to six (6) years, as
maximum. The gun subject of the case was further ordered After considering anew Valeroso’s arguments through his
confiscated in favor of the government. 15 Letter-Appeal, together with the OSG’s position recommending
his acquittal, and keeping in mind that substantial rights must
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed 16 the RTC ultimately reign supreme over technicalities, this Court is
decision but the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty swayed to reconsider.23
was lowered to four (4) years and two (2) months.
The Letter-Appeal is actually in the nature of a second motion conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the courts in the
for reconsideration. While a second motion for reconsideration dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of
is, as a general rule, a prohibited pleading, it is within the technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice,
sound discretion of the Court to admit the same, provided it is courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously
filed with prior leave whenever substantive justice may be guided by the norm that, on the balance, technicalities take a
better served thereby.24 backseat to substantive rights, and not the other way around.
Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate
This is not the first time that this Court is suspending its own rather than to promote justice, it would always be within our
rules or excepting a particular case from the operation of the power to suspend the rules or except a particular case from its
rules. In De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, 25 despite the denial of operation.29
De Guzman’s motion for reconsideration, we still entertained
his Omnibus Motion, which was actually a second motion for Now on the substantive aspect.
reconsideration. Eventually, we reconsidered our earlier
decision and remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan for The Court notes that the version of the prosecution, as to
reception and appreciation of petitioner’s evidence. In that where Valeroso was arrested, is different from the version of
case, we said that if we would not compassionately bend the defense. The prosecution claims that Valeroso was
backwards and flex technicalities, petitioner would surely arrested near the INP Central Police Station in Culiat, Quezon
experience the disgrace and misery of incarceration for a crime City, while he was about to board a tricycle. After placing
which he might not have committed after all. 26 Also in Astorga Valeroso under arrest, the arresting officers bodily searched
v. People,27 on a second motion for reconsideration, we set him, and they found the subject firearm and ammunition. The
aside our earlier decision, re-examined the records of the defense, on the other hand, insists that he was arrested inside
case, then finally acquitted Benito Astorga of the crime of the boarding house of his children. After serving the warrant of
Arbitrary Detention on the ground of reasonable doubt. And in arrest (allegedly for kidnapping with ransom), some of the
Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Amante, 28 by police officers searched the boarding house and forcibly
virtue of the January 13, 2004 En Banc Resolution, the Court opened a cabinet where they discovered the subject firearm.
authorized the Special First Division to suspend the Rules, so
as to allow it to consider and resolve respondent’s second After a thorough re-examination of the records and
motion for reconsideration after the motion was heard on oral consideration of the joint appeal for acquittal by Valeroso and
arguments. After a re-examination of the merits of the case, we the OSG, we find that we must give more credence to the
granted the second motion for reconsideration and set aside version of the defense.
our earlier decision.
Valeroso’s appeal for acquittal focuses on his constitutional
Clearly, suspension of the rules of procedure, to pave the way right against unreasonable search and seizure alleged to have
for the re-examination of the findings of fact and conclusions of been violated by the arresting police officers; and if so, would
law earlier made, is not without basis. render the confiscated firearm and ammunition inadmissible in
evidence against him.
We would like to stress that rules of procedure are merely tools
designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They are
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is who have the right to be where they are; c) the
secured by Section 2, Article III of the Constitution which evidence must be immediately apparent; and d) "plain
states: view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further
search;
SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall expectation of privacy especially when its transit in
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the suspicion amounting to probable cause that the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and occupant committed a criminal activity;
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized. 4. Consented warrantless search;

From this constitutional provision, it can readily be gleaned 5. Customs search;

that, as a general rule, the procurement of a warrant is
required before a law enforcer can validly search or seize the 6. Stop and Frisk;
person, house, papers, or effects of any individual. 30
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.32
To underscore the significance the law attaches to the
fundamental right of an individual against unreasonable
8. Search of vessels and aircraft; [and]
searches and seizures, the Constitution succinctly declares in
Article III, Section 3(2), that "any evidence obtained in violation
of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in 9. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the
evidence for any purpose in any proceeding." 31 enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations. 33

The above proscription is not, however, absolute. The In the exceptional instances where a warrant is not necessary
following are the well-recognized instances where searches to effect a valid search or seizure, what constitutes a
and seizures are allowed even without a valid warrant: reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely a
judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the
circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the
manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place
2. [Seizure] of evidence in "plain view." The elements or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured. 34
are: a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
In light of the enumerated exceptions, and applying the test of
present in the pursuit of their official duties; b) the
reasonableness laid down above, is the warrantless search
evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid?
We answer in the negative. evidence.41 A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who
is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one
For one, the warrantless search could not be justified as an concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. 42
incident to a lawful arrest. Searches and seizures incident to
lawful arrests are governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the In the present case, Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a
Rules of Court, which reads: warrant of arrest allegedly for kidnapping with ransom. At that
time, Valeroso was sleeping inside the boarding house of his
SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully children. He was awakened by the arresting officers who were
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything heavily armed. They pulled him out of the room, placed him
which may have been used or constitute proof in the beside the faucet outside the room, tied his hands, and then
commission of an offense without a search warrant. put him under the care of Disuanco. 43 The other police officers
remained inside the room and ransacked the locked
We would like to stress that the scope of the warrantless cabinet44 where they found the subject firearm and
search is not without limitations. In People v. ammunition.45 With such discovery, Valeroso was charged with
Leangsiri,35People v. Cubcubin, Jr.,36 and People v. illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
Estella,37 we had the occasion to lay down the parameters of a
valid warrantless search and seizure as an incident to a lawful From the foregoing narration of facts, we can readily conclude
arrest. that the arresting officers served the warrant of arrest without
any resistance from Valeroso. They placed him immediately
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting under their control by pulling him out of the bed, and bringing
officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any him out of the room with his hands tied. To be sure, the cabinet
weapon that the latter might use in order to resist arrest or which, according to Valeroso, was locked, could no longer be
effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be considered as an "area within his immediate control" because
endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is there was no way for him to take any weapon or to destroy any
entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and evidence that could be used against him.
seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to
prevent its concealment or destruction. 38 The arresting officers would have been justified in searching
the person of Valeroso, as well as the tables or drawers in
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the front of him, for any concealed weapon that might be used
right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless against the former. But under the circumstances obtaining,
search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the there was no comparable justification to search through all the
permissible area within the latter’s reach.39Otherwise stated, a desk drawers and cabinets or the other closed or concealed
valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous areas in that room itself.46
weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the
area of his immediate control. 40 The phrase "within the area of It is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception
his immediate control" means the area from within which he (warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to
might gain possession of a weapon or destructible protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person
arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and
to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach. Indeed, the police officers were inside the boarding house of
The exception, therefore, should not be strained beyond what Valeroso’s children, because they were supposed to serve a
is needed to serve its purpose. 47 In the case before us, search warrant of arrest issued against Valeroso. In other words, the
was made in the locked cabinet which cannot be said to have police officers had a prior justification for the intrusion.
been within Valeroso’s immediate control. Thus, the search Consequently, any evidence that they would inadvertently
exceeded the bounds of what may be considered as an discover may be used against Valeroso. However, in this case,
incident to a lawful arrest.48 the police officers did not just accidentally discover the subject
firearm and ammunition; they actually searched for evidence
Nor can the warrantless search in this case be justified under against Valeroso.
the "plain view doctrine."
Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of Valeroso’s
The "plain view doctrine" may not be used to launch unbridled right against unreasonable search and seizure. Consequently,
searches and indiscriminate seizures or to extend a general the evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible
exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant’s in evidence against him. 1avvphi1

guilt. The doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is

not searching for evidence against the accused, but Unreasonable searches and seizures are the menace against
nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating which the constitutional guarantees afford full protection. While
object.49 the power to search and seize may at times be necessary for
public welfare, still it may be exercised and the law enforced
As enunciated in People v. Cubcubin, Jr.50 and People v. without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens,
Leangsiri:51 for no enforcement of any statute is of sufficient importance to
justify indifference to the basic principles of government. Those
What the "plain view" cases have in common is that the police who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in
officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion disregarding the rights of an individual in the name of order.
in the course of which[,] he came inadvertently across a piece Order is too high a price to pay for the loss of liberty. 53
of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to
supplement the prior justification – whether it be a warrant for Because a warrantless search is in derogation of a
another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or constitutional right, peace officers who conduct it cannot
some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected invoke regularity in the performance of official functions. 54
with a search directed against the accused – and permits the
warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of constitutional government.
justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent If people are stripped naked of their rights as human beings,
to the police that they have evidence before them; the "plain democracy cannot survive and government becomes
view" doctrine may not be used to extend a general meaningless. This explains why the Bill of Rights, contained as
exploratory search from one object to another until something it is in Article III of the Constitution, occupies a position of
incriminating at last emerges.52 primacy in the fundamental law way above the articles on
governmental power.55
Without the illegally seized firearm, Valeroso’s conviction
cannot stand. There is simply no sufficient evidence to convict
him.56 All told, the guilt of Valeroso was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt measured by the required moral certainty for
conviction. The evidence presented by the prosecution was not
enough to overcome the presumption of innocence as
constitutionally ordained. Indeed, it would be better to set free
ten men who might probably be guilty of the crime charged
than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not
commit.57

With the foregoing disquisition, there is no more need to

discuss the other issues raised by Valeroso.

One final note. The Court values liberty and will always insist
on the observance of basic constitutional rights as a condition
sine qua non against the awesome investigative and
prosecutory powers of the government.58

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the February 22, 2008

Decision and June 30, 2008 Resolution are RECONSIDERED
and SET ASIDE. Sr. Insp. Jerry Valeroso is hereby
ACQUITTED of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.