G.R. No. 246195. September 30, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HERMIE ESTOLANO Y CASTILLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
CARANDANG, J.:
dated December 11, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of the City of
Manila, Branch 54 convicting accused-appellant Hermie Estolano y
Castillo for violation of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1988[3] as amended by Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9516.[4]
In an Information[5]
dated May 4, 2015, accused-appellant Hermie Estolano y Castillo
(Estolano) was charged before the RTC in Criminal Case No. 15-315577,
for violation of PD 1866 as amended by RA. 9516 for possessing a
fragmentation hand grenade:
That on or about April 17, 2015, in
the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his
custody and control one (1) MK2 Fragmentation Hand Grenade marked as
“HEC”, a device which is capable of destructive effect, with knowledge
of its explosive or incendiary character, without first having secured
from the proper authorities the necessary license thereof.
Contrary to law.[6] (Emphasis omitted)
The prosecution tends to prove as follows:
On April 17, 2015, at around 6:15 a.m., members of the V. Mapa Police
Station were at the comer of V. Mapa and Peralta streets of Sta. Mesa,
Manila to conduct Oplan Sita. PO3 Ruel Aguilar (PO3 Aguilar) saw a
yellow Mitsubishi Lancer without a plate number. PO3 Aguilar flagged
down the vehicle and approached Estolano who was driving the car. PO3
Aguilar asked Estolano for his license and the registration documents of
the car. Estolano failed to present anything. PO3 Aguilar ordered
Estolano to alight from the vehicle. Estolano initially refused and
acted as if he was trying to hide something in the pocket of his pants.
Several minutes after, Estolano finally alighted from the vehicle.[7]
POI Sonny Boy Lubay (PO1 Lubay) approached Estolano to conduct a body
search. While approaching, PO1 Lubay noticed that Estolano tried to get
something from his right front pocket PO1 Lubay also saw Estolano hold
the pin of a hand grenade placed inside Estolano’s pocket Immediately,
PO1 Lubay and PO1 Lucky Samson (PO1 Samson) grabbed the hands of
Estolano to prevent him from holding the grenade causing possible
explosion. Thereafter, the other police officers, including SPO2 Jayson
Sanchez, PO3 Ronalda Robles, PO2 Patrick Guevarra, PO2 Ulysses San
Diego, PO3 Ruel Aguilar, Police Inspector Lee Chui, and PO2 Eligio
Valencia conducted a search on the vehicle where they recovered the
plate number PFG-453. The police officers likewise noticed that the rear
portion of the vehicle had an improvised plate with “SUPREMA” written
on it.[8]
The
confiscated hand grenade was turned over to police investigator SPO1
Benigno Lino Corado Jr. (SPO1 Corado Jr.), and then to SPO1 Allan
Salinas (SPO1 Salinas) of the Explosives Ordnance Division of the Manila
Police District. SPO1 Salinas placed a masking tape on the hand grenade
and marked it with “HEC”, the initials of Estolano.[9] PO3 Aguilar and SPO1 Corado Jr. explained that they did not mark the hand grenade for fear that it might explode.[10] In the meantime, PO1 Lubay brought Estolano to the Ospital ng Maynila for medical examination[11] and eventually turned him over to Manila Police District – Police Station 8.[12]
On April 17, 2015, SPO1 Salinas issued a certificate[13]
stating that “the main components of [a] hand grenade such as [the]
fuze assembly, the body, and explosive filler are all still intact and
capable [of] explode[ing].”[14]
On November 10, 2015, P/C Supt. Elmo Francis O. Sarona (Supt. Sarona)
of the Firearms and Explosives Office, Civil Security Group of the
Philippine National Police issued a certification[15]
stating that Estolano “has not been issued a permit or license to
possess/transport a hand grenade, military ordnance or any explosives/
explosive ingredients based on available records filed with this Office
of this date.”[16]
The charge was denied by Estolano.[17]
Estolano claims that on April 16, 2015, he attended a birthday
celebration in Acacia Lane, Mandaluyong City. He left the party at past
midnight and took the ride home with his friends Lou, Marivic, and
Andrea. Estolano took the back seat with Marivic while Lou drove the
Mitsubishi Lancer. Then, they were flagged down at the checkpoint
located at the comer of V. Mapa and Peralta Streets. The police officer
instructed Lou to park the vehicle on the right side of the road and
ordered them to alight from the vehicle. Thereafter, the police officer
told them to go inside the nearby police station for verification. The
police officer following them said that a hand grenade was found inside
their vehicle. Estolano was suddenly kicked at the stomach. He fell on
his knees, and then to the ground with his face down. He was asked to go
inside a room where he was instructed to hold the gun tucked on the
waist of a police officer. Estolano refused. Another police officer
asked him if he had a relative whom he could call for help. Estolano
said that he could call his aunt working at the Office of the City
Prosecutor. The police officer asked him to go outside the room. Asked
if he knew the amount of bail for illegal possession of hand grenade and
answering no, the police officer told him that the bail is
P2,000,000.00. Estolano was asked to produce the said amount in exchange
for his freedom. Meanwhile, Estolano saw Lou also enter the room. A
lady who was crying then arrived. Estolano heard Lou telling the lady
that he would take care of everything. Thereafter, Estolano was brought
to the Ospital ng Maynila and then to the Manila Police District –
Police Station 8 (Police Station 8). Estolano did not see Lou, Marivic,
and Andrea in Police Station 8. He was later on informed by a police
officer that Lou gave P120,000.00 to the police. Since he did not give
money, only Estolano was charged with illegal possession of hand
grenade.[18]
Estolano entered the plea of not guilty.
After trial, the RTC convicted Estolano of the offense charged.
According to the trial court, the denial of the accused and the defense
of frame-up cannot overcome the positive, categorical and clear
testimonies of the police officers who enjoy the presumption that they
performed their official duty with regularity. The RTC sentenced
Estolano to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.[19]
On appeal to the CA, the defense maintained that the RTC erred in convicting Estolano of illegal possession of hand grenade. First,
the defense attacked the credibility of PO1 Lubay’s testimony because
it is unimaginable for Estolano to simply place a dangerous weapon such
as the hand grenade inside his pocket; at the very least, he could have
placed the hand grenade inside the trunk of the car, far from the prying
eyes of his friends and of the police.[20] Second,
the defense contended that the hand grenade is inadmissible in evidence
for having been confiscated in an invalid warrantless search. Third,
the defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of
illegal possession of firearms since no certification proving that
Estolano has no authority to possess the hand grenade was presented at
the time of the filing of the Information.[21]
The CA in its Decision[22]
dated September 27, 2018 affirmed Estolano’s conviction and found that
the prosecution successfully proved the essential elements of the crime
charged. The existence of the hand grenade was established through the
testimony of PO1 Lubay. PO1 Lubay and SPO1 Corrado, Jr. identified the
hand grenade confiscated from Estolano. Further, the certification
issued by the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosives
Office states that Estolano had no license or permit to own or possess
the hand grenade.[23]
The Public Attorney’s Office manifested Estolano’s intent to appeal in a Notice of Appeal.[24] The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation[25] dated December 10, 2019 stating that it will adopt the Appellee’s Brief[26]
dated February 6, 2017 as its Supplemental Brief Likewise, the defense,
through the Public Attorney’s Office, filed its Manifestation in Lieu
of Supplemental Brief[27] dated November 25, 2019.
The theory of the prosecution was that the warrantless search was justified as part of the routine checkpoint Oplan Sita,
which falls under a valid warantless search on a moving vehicle. The
scope of a valid warrantless search on moving vehicles, however, does
not come without limitations. Jurisprudence has always insisted that the
warrantless search on moving vehicles is not violative of the
Constitution for only as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its
occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle
is merely limited to a visual search.[28]
An extensive search is allowed only if the officers conducting the
search had probable cause to believe before the search that either the
motorist was a law offender or that they would find evidence pertaining
to the commission of a crime in the vehicle to be searched.
The Joint Affidavit of Apprehension[29]
submitted by the prosecution to the City Prosecutor of Manila, as well
as PO1 Lubay’s testimony, tells this Court that an extensive search was
conducted. Nonetheless, the Court sees no circumstance that would
justify the extensive search conducted in this case of Estolano.
First, the Court ruled in Mendoza v. People[30] that the commission of a traffic violation does not justify the arrest of the accused. Under Section 29[31]
of R.A. 4136 or the Land Transportation Code, such violation merely
warrant the confiscation of the offender’s driver’s license and issuance
of a traffic violation receipt from the apprehending officer. The same
procedure is found in the PNP Handbook which states that in flagging
down or accosting vehicles, “if it concerns traffic violations,
immediately issue a Traffic Citation Ticket or Traffic Violation Report.
Never indulge in prolonged, unnecessary conversation or argument with
the driver or any of the vehicle’s occupants.”[32]
Furthermore, the PNP Guidebook on Human Rights-based Policing instructs
that “[p]ersons stopped during a checkpoint are not required and must
not be forced to answer any questions posed during spot checks or
accosting. Failure to respond to an officer’s inquiries is not, in and
of itself, a sufficient ground to make an arrest. A person’s failure or
refusal to respond to questions made by the police officer, however, may
provide sufficient justification for additional observation and
investigation.”[33] Nothing in
the said handbook authorizes the police officer to order the driver or
passengers to alight the vehicle for a body search. Contrary to these
rules and guidelines, Estolano was ordered by the police officers to
alight from the vehicle that had no plate number.
Second,
the search in this case cannot be classified as a search of a moving
vehicle. In this particular type of warrantless search, the vehicle is
the target and not a specific person. Further, in a search of a moving
vehicle, the vehicle is intentionally used as a means to transport
illegal items.[34] In this case before the Court, the main target of the search was the person
of Estolano before a search on the vehicle was even conducted. Worse,
there was no information or tip relayed to the police officers about a
crime, other than the traffic violation, that had just been committed or
about to be committed. The police officers, therefore, had no probable
cause to believe that they will find in the person of Estolano any
instrument or evidence pertaining to a crime.
Third, it is worthy to note that the prosecution did not submit any evidence pertaining to Oplan Sita.
The Revised Philippine National Police Operational Procedures state
that the establishment of checkpoints must always be authorized by the
Head of Office of the territorial PNP Unit.[35]
In addition, the police and civilian components of the checkpoint
operations must submit their respective after-operations report to their
unit/organization.[36] The
prosecution failed to present anything related to these procedures on
checkpoint operations. Thus, there is no proof that the checkpoint Oplan Sita actually took place.
It must be remembered that warrantless searches are mere exceptions to
the constitutional right of a person against unreasonable searches and
seizures; thus, they must be strictly construed against the government
and its agents. The prosecution is reasonably burdened to present every
ounce of evidence in order to justify a warrantless search. While the
power to search and seize is necessary to the public welfare, still it
must be exercised and the law enforced, without transgressing the
constitutional rights of the Filipino citizens.
The questionable
conduct of the warrantless search and arrest left the Court with no
alternative but to acquit Estolano of the offense charged against him.
With the corpus delicti – the hand grenade allegedly confiscated
from Estolano – inadmissible in evidence, there is simply no evidence
against Estolano. The constitutionally enshrined presumption of
innocence must be upheld and the accused must be exonerated as a matter
of right.[37]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated September 27, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07976 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Hermie Estolano y Castillo is ACQUITTED of the crime charged, and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Superintendent of the
New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The
Superintendent is ORDERED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, Gesmundo, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Associate
Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin; rollo, pp. 3-18.
[2] Penned by Presiding Judge Maria Paz R. Reyes-Yson; CA rollo, pp. 13-21.
[3] Codified Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, etc. of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives.
[4] Amending PD 1866, as Amended Re: Illegal Possession of Firearms.
[5] Records, p. 1.
[6] Id.
[7] Rollo, p. 6.
[8] Id. at 6-7.
[9] CA rollo, p. 67.
[10] TSN dated September 2, 2015, p. 25.
[11] Id. at 11.
[12] Id. at 24.
[13] Records, p. 9.
[14] Id.
[15] Id. at 104.
[16] Id.
[17] CA rollo, p. 15.
[18] Rollo, pp. 8-9.
[19] CA rollo, pp. 20-21.
[20] Id. at 48.
[21] Id. at 54.
[22] Supra note 1.
[23] Rollo, p. 17
[24] Id. at 19-20.
[25] Rollo, pp. 33-34.
[26] CA rollo, pp. 90 – 102
[27] Rollo, p. 27.
[28] Valmonte v. Gen. De Villa, 264 Phil. 265, 270 (1990).
[29] Records, p. 5.
[30] G.R. No. 234196, November 21, 2018.
[31] Section 29. Confiscation of Driver’s Licenses.
– Law enforcement and peace officers duly designated by the
Commissioner shall, in apprehending any driver for violations of this
Act or of any regulations issued pursuant thereto, or of local traffic
rules and regulations, confiscate the license of the driver concerned
and issue a receipt prescribed and issued by the Commission therefor
which shall authorize the driver to operate a motor vehicle for a period
not exceeding seventy-two hours from the time and date of issue of said
receipt. The period so fixed in the receipt shall not be extended, and
shall become invalid thereafter. Failure of the driver to settle his
case within fifteen days from the date of apprehension will cause
suspension and revocation of his license.
[32] 11.7(m) of Rule 11 of the PNP Handbook
Rule 11. CHECKPOINTS
x x x x
11.7 Procedure in Flagging Down or Accosting Vehicles While in Mobile Car
x x x x
m. If it concerns traffic violations, immediately issue a Traffic
Citation Ticket (TCD or Traffic Violation Report (TVR). Never indulge in
prolonged, unnecessary conversation or argument with the driver or any
of the vehicle’s occupants;
[33] 3(g) of PNP Guidebook on Human Rights-based Policing.
3. POLICE CHECKPOINT
x x x x
g. Persons stopped during a checkpoint are not required and must
not be forced to answer any questions posed during spot checks or
accosting. Failure to respond to an officer’s inquiries is not, in and
of itself, a sufficient ground to make an arrest. A person’s failure or
refusal to respond to questions made by the police officer, however, may
provide sufficient justification for additional observation and
investigation.
[34] People v. Comprado, 829 Phil. 229, 245-246 (2018).
[35] 11.1 of Rule 11 of the PNP Handbook.
RULE 11. CHECKPOINTS
11.1 Authority to Establish Checkpoints. x x x. The establishment of checkpoints must always be authorized by the Head of Office of the territorial PNP Unit x x x.
[36] 3(d) of PNP Guidebook on Human Rights-based Policing.
3. USE OF FORCE
x x x x
d. Police personnel involved in shootouts and discharge of
firearms must submit an after-operations report. Assessments must be
conducted to determine the validity of the use of force during a police
operation.
[37] Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 234196, November 21, 2018.