PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SANTIAGO EVARISTO AND NOLI CARILLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Trece Martires, Cavite*, in Criminal Case No. NC-267,
entitled “People of the Philippines v. Santiago Evaristo and Noli
Carillo,” finding the accused guilty of illegal possession of firearms in
violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 and accordingly sentencing them to
the penalty of life imprisonment.

The information  indicting
the accused-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) reads:

“The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses SANTIAGO
EVARISTO AND NOLI CARILLO of the crime of VIOLATION of PD 1866, committed as
follows:

That on or about the 23rd day of August 1988, in the Municipality
of Mendez, Province of Cavite, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused being private persons not authorized
by law did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously manufacture,
repair and kept (sic) in their possession, custody and control one (1) caliber
38 revolver (paltik) with two live ammunition and one (1) empty shell of said
caliber, two (2) 12 gauge home made shot guns, one (1) caliber 22 revolver
(sumpak) and two (2) vise grips and one (1) plier use (sic) in the manufacture
and repair of said firearms without any permit or license from cmpetent (sic)
authority.

CONTRATRY (sic) TO LAW.

Cavite City, August 30, 1988.” ^[1]

Appellants having entered a plea of not guilty, trial thereupon
commenced, with the prosecution and the defense presenting their respective
witnesses and evidence to support their divergent versions of the events
leading to the arrest of the appellants.

A careful review of the records and the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses, Sgt. Eladio Romeroso and C1C Edgardo Vallarta of the
Philippine Constabulary, indicates that on the day in question, a contingent
composed of Romeroso and Vallarta, together with a Sgt. Daniel Maligaya, also
of the Philippine Constabulary, and two (2) members of the Integrated National
Police, were on routine patrol duty in Barangay III, Mendez, Cavite. At or about 5:50 in the afternoon, successive
bursts of gunfire were heard in the vicinity. Proceeding to the approximate source of the same, they came upon one
Barequiel Rosillo who was firing a gun into the air.

Seeing the patrol, Rosillo ran to the nearby house of appellant
Evaristo prompting the lawmen to pursue him. Upon approaching the immediate perimeter of the house, specifi­cally a
cement pavement or porch leading to the same, the patrol chanced upon the
slightly inebriated appellants, Evaristo and Carillo. Inquiring as to the whereabouts of Rosillo, the police patrol
members were told that he had already escaped through a window of the
house. Sgt. Vallarta immediately
observed a noticeable bulge around the waist of Carillo who, upon being frisked,
admitted the same to be a .38 revolver. After ascertaining that Carillo was neither a member of the military nor
had a valid license to possess the said firearm, the gun was confiscated and
Carillo invited for questioning.

As the patrol was still in pursuit of Rosillo, Sgt. Romeroso
sought Evaristo’s permission to scour through the house, which was
granted. In the sala, he found, not
Rosillo, but a number of firearms and paraphernalia supposedly used in the
repair and manufacture of firearms, all of which, thereafter, became the basis
for the present indictment against Evaristo.

For their part, the appellants dispute the above narration of the
events in question, alleging that they were forcibly taken into custody by the
police officers and even subjected to physical and mental indignities. They denied ownership or knowledge of any of
the firearms presented in evidence, contending that these were purposely
planted in their possession by the prosecution witnesses and other police
authorities.

After evaluation of all the evidence, the trial court rendered
the now-assailed decision dated 18 April 1990, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

“Wherefore, for having possessed firearms in violation of P.D.
No. 1866, accused Santiago Evaristo and Noli Carillo are hereby sentenced to
serve the penalty provided for under Sec. 1 thereof. The full period of their preventive imprisonment shall be
deducted from the afore­mentioned penalty.

With costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.” ^[2]

Hence, this petition, assigning the following as errors of the
trial court:

“1.  The lower court gravely erred in admitting
Exhibits ‘B’ to ‘F’ in evidence considering that those are illegally seized
evidence;

2.   The
lower court gravely erred in finding that said illegally seized evidence are
firearms as contemplated in Presidential Decree No. 1866; and

3.   The
lower court gravely erred in giving credence to the arresting officer’s
testimonies which are patently contradictory and half truths (sic)
testimonies.”^[3]

First, on the issue of illegal search. The pertinent rule on the matter is Article III of the
Constitution, the relevant portion of which provides:

“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 far any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined 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.”

“sec. 3 (1)     xxx       xxx       xxx

(2) Any evidence
obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmis­sible
for any purpose in any proceeding.”

It is to be noted that what the above constitutional provisions prohibit
are unreasonable searches and seizures. For a search to be reasonable under the law, there must, as a rule, be a
search warrant validly issued by an appropriate judicial officer. Yet, the rule that searches and seizures
must be supported by a valid search warrant is not an absolute and inflexible
rule, for jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions to the search warrant
requirement. Among these exceptions is the
seizure of evidence in plain view,
adopted by this jurisdiction from the pronouncements of the United States
Supreme Court in Harris vs. U.S.^[4]
and Coolidge vs. New Hampshire^[5]. Thus, it is recognized that objects
inadvertently falling in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be
in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be introduced
in evidence.^[6]

The records in this case show that Sgt. Romerosa was granted
permission by the appellant Evaristo to enter his house. The officer’s purpose was to apprehend
Rosillo whom he saw had sought refuge therein. Therefore, it is clear that the search for firearms was not Romerosa’s
purpose in entering the house, thereby rendering his discovery of the subject
firearms as inadvertent and even accidental.

With respect to the firearm seized from the appellant Carillo,
the Court sustains the validity of the firearm’s seizure and admissibility in
evidence, based on the rule on authorized warrantless arrests. Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure provides:

“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.”

For purposes of the present case, the second circums­tance by
which a warrantless arrest may be undertaken is applicable. For, as disclosed by the records, the peace
officers, while on patrol, heard bursts of gunfire and thus proceeded to
investigate the matter. This incident
may well be within the “offense” envisioned by par. 5(b) of Rule 113,
Rules of Court. As the Court held in People
of the Phillipines v. Sucro,^[7]
“an offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer,
within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when
the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or HEARS THE DISTURBANCES
CREATED THEREBY AND PROCEEDS AT ONCE TO THE SCENE THEREOF.”^[8]

The next inquiry is addressed to the existence of personal
knowledge on the part of the peace officer of facts pointing to the person to
be arrested as the perpetrator of the offense. Again, reference to the records resolves said query. Giving chase to Rosillo, the peace officers
came upon the two (2) appellants who were then asked concerning Rosillo’s
whereabouts. At that point, Sgt.
Vallarta discerned the bulge on the waist of Carillo. This visual observation along with the earlier report of gunfire,
as well as the peace officer’s professional instincts, are more than sufficient
to pass the test of the Rules. Consequently, under the facts, the firearm taken from Carillo can be
said to have been seized incidental to a lawful and valid arrest.

The next area to be addressed is the allegation of the appellants
that the statute’s coverage does not extend to firearms that are not functional
or serviceable. The Court does not
agree.

Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 penalizes “any person who shal
unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any
firearms, PART OF FIREARM, ammunition or machinery, tool or instrument used or
intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition.”^[9]
It is clear that the law makes no distinction as to serviceable or functional
firearms. Indeed, the possession of
even a part of a firearm is sufficient to come within the prohibitive ambit of
the statute. Ubi lex non
distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus.

Lastly, the appellants challenge the veracity of the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses, maintaining that these were inconsistent with
each other, thereby giving rise to the conclusion that the entire incident was
a contrivance on their part. Specifically, they point to the apparent conflict in the statement of
the prosecution witnesses that there were only three (3) individuals in the
vicinity (aside from the peace officers) as opposed to the testimony of another
peace officer, testifying as a hostile witness, that aside from the appellants
and Rosillo, there were also other people in the vicinity, such as Evaristo’s
mother, brother and other farmers.

The Court sees no such conflict. A recourse to the trial court proceedings easily shows that the two (2)
prosecution witnesses, Sgt. Romerosa and C1C Vallarta, testified in a
straightforward and candid manner, categorically identifying the appellants as
the two (2) individuals they had apprehended and clearly narrating the
circumstances of such apprehension. The
defense has given no possible reason or motivation for these peace officers to
make false accusations against the appellants. Absent the presentation of such defense evidence, the testimony of the
peace officers should deserve full credence.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court of Trece
Martires, Cavite in Criminal Case No. NC-267 finding the accused Santiago
Evaristo and Noel Carillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Illegal Possession
of Firearms as defined in Presidential Decree No. 1866, is hereby AFFIRMED.

The Court orders the forfeiture of the firearms and other
incidental paraphernalia found in the possession of the appellants, in favor of
the Philippine National Police (PNP) to be disposed of in accordance with law.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Griño-Aquino and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., (Chairman), see separate opinion.

*
Presided over by Hon. Enrique M. Almario

^[1]
Rollo, p. 4

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 21-22

^[3]
Rollo, Appellant’s Brief, p. 55

^[4]
390 U.S. 324

^[5]
403 U.S. 443

^[6]
Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. 2, 1989 Edition, p. 427

^[7]
G.R. No. 93239, 18 March 1991, 195 SCRA 388

^[8]
Ibid, citing U.S. vs. Fortaleza, 12 Phil. 472 and U.S. vs.
Samonte, 16 Phil. 516

^[9]
Emphasis (underscoring and capitals) supplied

300

6 pt
6 pt
0
3