CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CASE 25
VALEROSO vs PEOPLE
G.R: 164815 | DATE: September 3, 2009 | NACHURA, J.:
TOPIC: Warrantless search
DIGEST BY: HAWK

Recitation Ready Summary

Valeroso was charged with violation of P.D. 1866 which he prayed to be set aside and a new one be entered acquitting
him of the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. He was arrested with warrant for a case of kidnapping
with ransom while he was sleeping at Sagana Homes and placed him immediately under control of police officers by
pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him out of the room with his hands tied. Thereafter, they searched and
ransacked the room and found Charter Arms revolver, with 5 pieces of live ammunition.

The SC ruled in favor of Valeroso, there was an invalid search and consequently, the evidence is inadmissible against
him. According to the SC, one of the exceptions to the right against unreasonable searches and seizures secured by
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution is warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest which applies in this case.
However, the parameters of a valid warrantless search and seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest is that a valid arrest
allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his
immediate control. In this case, police officers placed him immediately under their control by pulling him out of the bed,
and bringing him out of the room with his hands tied. Thus, there was no way for Valeroso to take any weapon or to
destroy any evidence that could be used against him.

Parties
● Petitioner
○ Sr. Insp. Jerry C. Valeroso
● Respondents
○ Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines

Doctrine
The purpose of the exception (warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to 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. The exception, therefore, should not be strained beyond what is needed to serve its
purpose.

Information
Valeroso was charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, committed as follows:

That on or about the 10th day of July, 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused without any authority of law, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her possession and under his/her custody and control

One (1) cal. 38 "Charter Arms" revolver bearing serial no. 52315 with five (5) live ammo without first having secured the
necessary license/permit issued by the proper authorities.

Facts
Prosecution’s Version
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
 On July 10, 1996, at around 9:30 a.m., Disuanco received a Dispatch Order directing him serve a Warrant of
Arrest, issued by Judge Ignacio Salvador, against Valeroso for a case of kidnapping with ransom.

● The team members proceeded to the Central Police Station in Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw
Valeroso about to board a tricyle. They put him under arrest, informed him of his constitutional rights, and
bodily searched him. They found a Charter Arms revolver, with 5 pieces of live ammunition, tucked in his
waist.

● Upon verification in the Firearms and Explosives Division in Camp Crame, it was found that the subject
firearm was not issued to Valeroso, but was licensed in the name of a certain Raul Palencia Salvatierra.

Accused Version

● Valeroso, SPO3 Timbol, Jr. and Yuson testified that on July 10, 1996, Valeroso was sleeping inside a room
in the boarding house of his children located at Sagana Homes. He was awakened by 4 heavily armed men
in civilian attire who pointed their guns at him and pulled him out of the room.

● The raiding team tied his hands and placed him near the faucet (outside the room) then went back inside,
searched and ransacked the room. Moments later, an operative came out of the room and exclaimed, "Hoy,
may nakuha akong baril sa loob!"

● Disuanco informed Valeroso that there was a standing warrant for his arrest. However, the raiding team was
not armed with a search warrant.

● Timbol testified that he issued to Valeroso a Memorandum Receipt covering the subject firearm and its
ammunition, upon the verbal instruction of Col. Angelito Moreno.

RTC Finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged.

CA Affirmed the decision of RTC.

Additional Info in the facts after decision of lower courts

 Valeroso filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied with finality. Thus, through Letter-Appeal, he is
imploring the Court to once more take a contemplative reflection and deliberation on the case, focusing on his
breached constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

 Meanwhile the OSG filed its Manifestation, that the OSG changed its previous position and now recommends
Valeroso’s acquittal. After a second look at the evidence presented, the OSG considers the testimonies of the
witnesses for the defense more credible and thus concludes that Valeroso was arrested in a boarding house.
More importantly, the OSG agrees with Valeroso that the subject firearm was obtained by the police officers in
violation of Valeroso’s constitutional right against illegal search and seizure, and should thus be excluded from the
evidence for the prosecution. Lastly, assuming that the subject firearm was admissible in evidence, still, Valeroso
could not be convicted of the crime, since he was able to establish his authority to possess the gun through the
Memorandum Receipt issued by his superiors.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Court can suspend rules of procedure. - YES

 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

2. Whether warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid. – NO

3. Whether warrantless search be justified under the "plain view doctrine." - NO

Ruling

The Court affirmed the CA decision in affirming the RTC.

1. Yes, Court can suspend the rules of procedure . If the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather
than to promote justice, it would always be within Court’s power to suspend the rules or except a particular case
from its operation.

The Letter-Appeal is actually in the nature of a second motion for reconsideration. While a second motion for
reconsideration is, as a general rule, a prohibited pleading, it is within the sound discretion of the Court to admit
the same, provided it is filed with prior leave whenever substantive justice may be better served thereby.

In De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, despite the denial of De Guzman’s motion for reconsideration, the
Court still entertained his Omnibus Motion, which was actually a second motion for reconsideration. In
this case, Court said that if they would not compassionately bend backwards and flex technicalities,
petitioner would surely experience the disgrace and misery of incarceration for a crime which he might
not have committed after all.

In Astorga v. People, on a second motion for reconsideration, Court set aside our earlier decision, re-
examined the records of the case, then finally acquitted Benito Astorga of the crime of Arbitrary
Detention on the ground of reasonable doubt.

In Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Amante, by virtue of the January 13, 2004 En
Banc Resolution, the Court authorized the Special First Division to suspend the Rules, so as to allow it
to consider and resolve respondent’s second motion for reconsideration after the motion was heard on
oral arguments.

Clearly, suspension of the rules of procedure, to pave the way for the re-examination of the findings of
fact and conclusions of law earlier made, is not without basis.

Court like to stress that rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of
justice. They are conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the courts in the dispensation of justice.
In rendering justice, courts have always been conscientiously guided by the norm that, on the balance,
technicalities take a backseat to substantive rights, and not the other way around.

2. No, warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition is not valid. The warrantless search
could not be justified as an incident to a lawful arrest.

The Court stress that the scope of the warrantless search is not without limitations.
In People v. Leangsiri, People v. Cubcubin, Jr., and People v. Estella, the Court had the occasion to lay down
the parameters of a valid warrantless search and seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest.

When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order
to remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape.

Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to
conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area
within the latter’s reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or
dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
immediate control. The phrase "within the area of his immediate control" means the area from within
which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.

In this case, Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest allegedly for kidnapping with ransom
and the arresting officers served the warrant of arrest without any resistance from Valeroso. They placed
him immediately under their control by pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him out of the room with his
hands tied. To be sure, the cabinet which, according to Valeroso, was locked, could no longer be
considered as an "area within his immediate control" because there was no way for him to take any
weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used against him.

It is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception (warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to
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. The exception, therefore, should not be
strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose. In the case before us, the search exceeded the bounds of
what may be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest.

3. No, warrantless search cannot be justified under the "plain view doctrine." This doctrine is usually applied
where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes
across an incriminating object.

In People v. Cubcubin, Jr. and People v. Leangsiri:

What the "plain view" cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior
justification for an intrusion in the course of which, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence
incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification – whether it be a
warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason
for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused – and permits the
warrantless seizure.

The police officers had a prior justification for the intrusion. Consequently, any evidence that they would
inadvertently discover may be used against Valeroso. However, in this case, the police officers did not just
accidentally discover the subject firearm and ammunition; they actually searched for evidence against
Valeroso.

Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of Valeroso’s right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Consequently, the evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible in evidence against him.

Because a warrantless search is in derogation of a constitutional right, peace officers who conduct it cannot
invoke regularity in the performance of official functions.

The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of constitutional government. If people are stripped naked of their rights as
human beings, democracy cannot survive and government becomes meaningless. This explains why the Bill of
Rights, contained as it is in Article III of the Constitution, occupies a position of primacy in the fundamental law
way above the articles on governmental power.

Additional Info:

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by Section 2, Article III of the Constitution which
states:

SEC. 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.
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
From this constitutional provision, it can readily be gleaned that, as a general rule, the procurement of a warrant is
required before a law enforcer can validly search or seize the person, house, papers, or effects of any individual.

The above proscription is not, however, absolute. The following are the well-recognized instances where
searches and seizures are allowed even without a valid warrant:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

2. [Seizure] of evidence in "plain view." The elements are: a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless
arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; b) the evidence was inadvertently
discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; c) the evidence must be immediately apparent;
and d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search;

3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces
expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion
amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;

4. Consented warrantless search;

5. Customs search;

6. Stop and Frisk;

7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.32

8. Search of vessels and aircraft; [and]

9. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations