PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEONARDO CHANLIONGCO Y SUÑGA A.K.A. “AVE”, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Chanliongco

The Case

This is People versus Chanliongco, a criminal appeal decided by the Supreme Court. The accused, Leonardo Chanliongco y Suñga, also known as Ave, was convicted by the Manila Regional Trial Court in two separate cases: one for violating the COMELEC gun ban during the election period, and another for illegal possession of a firearm under the special law. The case matters because it settles two things a reviewee must know: first, that a firearm recovered in plain view during a legitimate pursuit is not the fruit of a poisonous tree; and second, that under the amendatory law, an accused cannot be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms when another crime was committed at the same time.

Procedural History

Chanliongco was charged before the Manila Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, in two Informations dated April 16, 2013. On May 22, 2013, he entered a negative plea. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Judgment on October 30, 2013, finding him guilty in both cases. In the illegal possession case, he was sentenced to six years and one day of prision mayor and a fine of 30,000 pesos. In the COMELEC gun ban case, he was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The firearm was forfeited in favor of the government.

Chanliongco appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors against his conviction. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, recommended setting aside the conviction for illegal possession of firearms but affirmed the conviction for the COMELEC gun ban, while pointing out an error in the penalty imposed.

Facts

On April 11, 2013, a confidential informant reported to the Manila Police District that a drug deal would take place with a person called Ave. A buy-bust operation was planned but did not push through because no shabu was available. The following day, April 12, 2013, within the election period, five police officers, together with the informant, proceeded to the meeting place. Officer Libiano was designated as the poseur buyer.

When the suspect arrived in a red car, he waved the officer and the informant over. After a brief exchange, the suspect handed a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu to Officer Libiano. The officer gave the pre-arranged signal. Seeing the officers approach, the suspect tried to speed away but could not because vendors blocked his path. He alighted and tried to escape, carrying a firearm. The officers chased him. When he realized he could not escape, he dropped the firearm to the ground. Officer Libiano recovered it: a silver chrome Colt 45 caliber with magazine and four live ammunitions.

Chanliongco denied the charges. He claimed that while driving along Yuseco Street, two vehicles blocked his car and armed men in ordinary clothes ordered him out. He was brought to the police office, where he was told that drugs and a firearm were found in his vehicle. He insisted that nothing illegal was confiscated from him, that he did not own any firearm, and that the officers demanded 200,000 pesos from him in exchange for filing only lighter charges. He refused. He also admitted that he did not know the officers and knew of no reason why they would fabricate the charges against him.

Issues

• Whether or not the firearm recovered from the accused was the product of an illegal search and therefore inadmissible as a fruit of a poisonous tree.
• Whether or not the accused may be convicted of a separate offense of illegal possession of firearms when another crime was committed at the same time.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing a straight penalty of two years imprisonment for the COMELEC gun ban violation.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. - A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.

This provision supports the validity of the search and the admissibility of the firearm seized.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:

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 just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances 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.

This provision authorizes the warrantless arrest of the accused who was committing an offense in the presence of the officers.

Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides:

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 the 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.

This provision requires the modification of the straight penalty imposed by the trial court.

Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Sec. 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.

This provision fixes the range of the penalty for the COMELEC gun ban violation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the firearm was not the product of an illegal search. The Court found that the firearm was in plain view, as the accused was holding it while trying to escape. The recovery was not a product of a search on his person; it was the accused himself who dropped the firearm upon realizing he had no way out. The Court also ruled that the warrantless arrest was valid under Section 5, Rule 113, because the accused was committing an offense in the presence of the officers. Thus, the firearm is legal and admissible in evidence.

On the second issue, the Court held that the accused cannot be convicted of a separate offense of illegal possession of firearms. Citing the case of Agote versus Lorenzo, the Court explained that under the amendatory law, if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Since the accused was also committing a violation of the COMELEC gun ban at the same time, the separate charge of illegal possession of firearms must be set aside. The Court applied the rule that penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in imposing a straight penalty of two years. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused should be sentenced to an indeterminate prison sentence, the minimum of which shall not be less than one year and the maximum of which shall not exceed six years.

Doctrine

A firearm recovered in plain view, without any search on the person of the accused, is not the fruit of a poisonous tree and is admissible in evidence. A warrantless arrest is valid when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. Under the amendatory law, an accused cannot be convicted of a separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms when another crime was committed at the same time; penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused. Finally, when an offense is punished by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the law and the minimum of which shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed.

Disposition

The appeal was partially granted. The conviction for the COMELEC gun ban was affirmed but the penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of one year as minimum to six years as maximum. The conviction for illegal possession of firearms was reversed and set aside, and the accused was acquitted in that case. The firearm was forfeited in favor of the government.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: a firearm in plain view during a legitimate pursuit is admissible, and no separate conviction for illegal possession of firearms lies when another crime is committed at the same time. Examiners like to use this case to test the plain view doctrine, the validity of warrantless arrests, and the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law to election offenses.