People v.

de Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (July 6, 1994)

F: The incidents involved in this case took place at the height of the coup d''etat staged in December, 1989. Accused-appellant Rolando de Gracia was charged in two separate informations for illegal possession of ammunition and explosives in furtherance of rebellion, and for attempted homicide. Appellant was convicted for illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion, but was acquitted of attempted homicide. Surveillance was undertaken by the military along EDSA because of intelligence reports about a coup. Members of the team were engaged by rebels in gunfire killing one member of the team. A searching team raided the Eurocar Sales Office. They were able to find and confiscate six cartons of M-16 ammunition, five bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different calibers, and "molotov" bombs inside one of the rooms belonging to a certain Col. Matillano. De Gracia was seen inside the office of Col. Matillano, holding a C-4 and suspiciously peeping through a door. The team arrested appellant. They were then made to sign an inventory, written in Tagalog, of the explosives and ammunition confiscated by the raiding team. No search warrant was secured by the raiding team. Accused was found guilty of illegal possession of firearms. That judgment of conviction is now challenged before us in this appeal. Issue: Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure in this case. Ruling: YES It is admitted that the military operatives who raided the Eurocar Sales Office were not armed with a search warrant at that time. The raid was actually precipitated by intelligence reports that said office was being used as headquarters by the RAM. Prior to the raid, there was a surveillance conducted on the premises wherein the surveillance team was fired at by a group of men coming from the Eurocar building. SYLLABUS

consistent in every detail as differences in recollection or viewpoints or impressions are inevitable. Total recall or perfect symmetry is not required for as long as the witnesses concur on material points, slight differences in their remembrance of the details do not reflect on the essential veracity of their testimony. Indeed, if rights were to be lost merely because witnesses, while agreeing on the essential fact, fail to testify harmoniously to all the particulars, in a very large proportion of cases involving wrongs to be redressed the law would fail to furnish a remedy. Hence, variations in the testimony of witnesses on the same side in respect of minor, collateral, or incidental matters do not usually impair the weight of their united testimony to the prominent facts. 2. ID.; ID.; BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PROVING SELF-DEFENSE IS ON THE ACCUSED. It is a settled rule that when an accused invokes self-defense, the burden is on him to establish by clear and convincing evidence his justification for the killing. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution. 3. CRIMINAL LAW; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE; SELF-DEFENSE; ELEMENTS. For selfdefense to prevail, three (3) requisites must concur, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) resonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; MERE THREATENING OR IN-TIMIDATING ATTITUDE, NOT SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION. Upon minute examination of the evidence on record, we find that appellants have failed to discharge this burden. The first and crucial element for selfdefense to prosper is wanting in this case. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude exhibited in the alleged shouting incident between Crispin and the brothers is not sufficient. 5. ID.; ID.; ID.; NEGATED BY PRESENCE OF FIVE (5) STAB WOUNDS AND A COMPOUND FRACTURE ON THE NASAL BONE OF THE VICTIM. Another factor which militates against the appellants claim of self-defense and defense of a relative is the physical evidence on record. Crispin suffered no less than five (5) stab wounds on different parts of his body and a compound fracture on the nasal bone. Just as the presence and severity of a large number of wounds on the part of the victim disprove self-defense, so do they belie the claim of defense of a relative and indicate not the desire to defend ones relative but a determined effort to kill. 6. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE TRIAL COURT, GENERALLY UPHELD ON APPEAL. In the final analysis, appellants first three assignment of errors hinge on the trial courts assessment of the witnesses credibility. Factual findings of the lower court especially on the credibility of the witnesses is generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal. In this case, the trial court considered the testimonies of prosecution witnesses as natural, probable, straighforward, and credible. We find no cogent reason to hold otherwise as the trial court is in the best position to make an honest determination of the witnesses deportation during trial. 7. CRIMINAL LAW; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER; CONSIDERED WHERE ACCUSED SPONTANEOUSLY, VOLUNTARILY AND UNCONDITIONALLY PLACED HIMSELF AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE AUTHO-RITIES. Appellant Bonifacio claims the

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY MINOR DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES ON THE SITE OF THE CRIME AND THE WEAPONS USED. Appellants lay stress on the apparent contradiction between the testimony of the prosecution witnesses Aries Almazan and Anita Almazan as to the location of the incident and the weapons used on the assault. Thus, they point out that while Anita testified that she saw appellants meet Crispin at the latters house, and the weapon used was a spear, Aries, on the other hand, claimed that Crispin was met by appellants at the ricefield and the weapon used was a bolo. We are not persuaded. Prosecution witnesses Aries and Anita viewed the incident from different locations and angles, hence the variation in their perceptions. The discrepancy as to the place where the appellants met the victim is negligible considering that Crispins yard was part of the rice field. Similarly, the disparity as to the kind of the weapon used is insignificant in the face of the declaration of Aries that Bonifacio stabbed Crispin with a bolo and Dalmacio with a spear, while Bonifacio admitted using a spear and chisel. Furthermore, the autopsy report is emphatic that the injuries suffered by Crispin resulting to his death were caused by sharp edged object with pointed tip and pointed sharp edge instrument. Both a spear and a bolo fall under the description pointed sharp edged instrument. In the whole, the alleged inconsistencies are inconsequential. The witnesses testifying on the same event do not have to be

benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. We note that Bonifacio surrendered and was in fact accompanied by his uncle to the police station, albeit he remained silent. Nonetheless, we cannot take Bonifacios silence against him. What matters is that Bonifacio, spontaneously, voluntarily and unconditionally placed himself at the disposal of the authorities. This act of repentance and respect for the law indicates a moral disposition favorable to his reform. The same mitigating circumstance, however, cannot favor Cresencio as he did not surrender. Cresencio was thus correctly sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Appellant Bonifacio is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twenty years (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. 8. ID.; MURDER; PENALTY WHERE CRIME WAS ATTENDED BY ONE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. The applicable penalty for murder prior to the enactment of the Death Penalty Law is reclusion temporal maximum to death. There being no aggravating circumstance but with one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty imposable on Bonifacio in accordance with Art. 64(2) of the Revised Penal Code should be the minimum period, that is, reclusion temporal in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is entitled to a minimum penalty of prison mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium, being the range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. In people vs de gracia, the raid of, and the consequent seizure of firearms and ammunition in, the Eurocar Sales Office at the height of the December 1989 coup detat was held valid, considering the exigent and emergency situation obtaining. The military operatives had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed, and they had no opportunity to apply for a search warrant from the courts because the latter were closed. Under such urgency and exigency, a search warrant could be validly dispensed with. (NACHURA)

the power to seek and cripple subversive movements for the maintenance of peace in the state. Theaerial target zoning were intended to flush out subversives and criminal elements coddled by the communities were the said drives were conducted. They said that they have intelligently and carefully planned months ahead for the actual operation and that local and foreign media joined the operation to witness and record such event.

Issue: Whether or Not the saturation drive committed consisted of violation of human rights.

Held: It is not the police action per se which should be prohibited rather it is the procedure used or the methods which "offend even hardened sensibilities" .Based on the facts stated by the parties, it appears to have been no impediment to securing search warrants or warrants of arrest before any houses were searched or individuals roused from sleep were arrested. There is no showing that the objectives sought to be attained by the "aerial zoning" could not be achieved even as th rights of the squatters and low income families are fully protected. However, the remedy should not be brought by a tazpaer suit where not one victim complaints and not one violator is properly charged. In the circumstances of this taxpayers' suit, there is no erring soldier or policeman whom the court can order prosecuted. In the absence of clear facts no permanent relief can be given. In the meantime where there is showing that some abuses were committed, the court temporary restraint the alleged violations which are shocking to the senses. Petition is remanded to the RTC of Manila. *** The SC upheld, as valid exercise of the military powers of the President, the conduct pf aerial target zoning or saturation drive/s. In this case, the validity of the search was not directly questioned, raised in issue were alleged abuses committed by the military personnel who conducted the saturation drives. In the absence of complainants and complaints against specific actors, no prohibition could be issued. However, the Court temporarily restrained the alleged banging of walls, kicking of doors, herding of half-naked men for examination of tattoo marks, the violation of residences, even if these are humble shanties of squatters, and the other alleged acts which are shocking to the conscience. The SC remanded the case to the trial court for reception of evidence on the alleged abuses. A. When is a search a reasonable search? Valmonte v. De Villa checkpoints Section 2 is a personal right invocable only by those whose rights have been infringed or threatened to be infringed; reasonableness is determined by a fixed formula but from the circumstances of the case; not all searches and seizures are not allowed; between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an individual; right against warrantless search which was reasonably conductedm the former should prevail B. Requisites of a Valid Warrant Alvarez v. CFI of Tayabas definition of a search warrant an order in writing, issued in the

GUANZON VS. DE VILLA [181 SCRA 623; G.R. 80508; 30 JAN 1990] Friday, February 06, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Political Law Facts: The 41 petitioners alleged that the "saturation drive" or "aerial target zoning" that were conducted in their place (Tondo Manila) were unconstitutional. They alleged that there is no specific target house to be search and that there is no search warrant orwarrant of arrest served. Most of the policemen are in their civilian clothes and without nameplates or identification cards. The residentswere rudely rouse from their sleep by banging on the walls andwindows of their houses. The residents were at the point of high-powered guns and herded like cows. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs for the police to examine their tattoo marks. The residentscomplained that they're homes were ransacked, tossing their belongings and destroying their valuables. Some of their money and valuables had disappeared after the operation. The residents also reported incidents of maulings, spotbeatings and maltreatment. Those who were detained also suffered mental and physical torture to extract confessions and tactical informations. The respondents said that such accusations were all lies. Respondents contends that theConstitution grants to government

name of the People of the Philippine Islands, signed by a judge or justice of peace and directed to a peace officer commanding him to search for personal property and bring it before court, OATH - any form of attestation that a party signifies that he is bound by conscience to perform an act faithfully or truthfully People v. CA the general rule is that search warrants must be served during the daytime (protect the public from the abrasiveness of official intrusions). Exception: a search at any reasonable hour of day or night may be made when the application asserts that the property in on the person or place ordered to be searched. Absence of abuse of discretion, a search conducted at night where so allowed is not improper People v. Veloso parliamentary club - JOHN DOE WARRANTS Valid IF the best description possible is given in the arrest warrant it must be sufficient to indicate clearly on whom it is to be served by stating his occupation, personal appearance or peculiarities, place of residence or other circumstances which he may be identified Microsoft v. Maxicorp software probable cause such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper; OATH must refer to the truth of the facts WITHIN THE PERSONAL KNOLEDGE OF THE PETITIONER OR HIS WITNESSES; probable cause deals with probability and not absolute certainty Burgos Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP Metropolitan Mail and We Forum typographical error in specifying the address to be searched not sufficient to invalidate search warrant where the address intended appears on the face of the warrant; probable cause such facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched People v. CA Abigails Variety Store VOID warrant the claim that the place actually searched although not the one specified in the warrant is exactly what they had in view when they applied for the warrant is unacceptable. What is material in determining the validity of the warrant is the place stated in the warrant, not the one they had in their thoughts; particularization of description may properly be done only by the judge and only in the warrant itself Corro v. Lising Philippine Times conclusions of law of military officers will not satisfy probable cause requirement for issuance of search warrants Soliven v. Makasiar The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. He shall: 1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest OR 2) if on the basis thereof, he does not find probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion of the existence of probable cause

Lim Sr. v. Felix certification by the fiscal of the existence of probable cause does not bind the judge. Preliminary inquiry determines probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant (prosecutor); preliminary examination (judge) - investigation for the determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest; preliminary investigation proper ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released. Yao Sr. v. People GASUL and SHELLANE v. MASAGANA - examination of complainant and witnesses must be probing and exhaustive not merely routinary, general, peripheral, perfunctory or pro forma; law does not require that the thihgs to be seized should be described in very precise and minute details. C. Warrantless Searches and Seizures Nolasco v. Pano articles seized by void warrants should be retuned to its owners Papa v. Mago Customs Search search warrant not necessary except if the place to be searched is a dwelling or house Tariff and Customs Code People v. CFI of Rizal search of moving vehicle Carroll doctrine search of moving vehicles or automobiles no search warrant needed People. V. Lo Ho Wing - exception to the issuance of search warrant: 1) search incidental to a lawful arrest; 2) search of moving vehicle; 3) seizure of evidence in plain view People v. Evaristo evidence in plain view Harris v. Coolidge, Coolidge v. New Hampshire no search warrant needed; Malacat v. CA valid waiver must be made in writing and in the presence of counsel; search incidental to a lawful arrest v. stop and frisk Terry Case probable cause is not required to conduct stop and frisk but mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate it. A genuine reason must exist. People v. De Gracia Eurocar Sales Office crime was in fact being committed search incidental to lawful arrest valid People v. Johnson inspection at airports Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting lack of subjective expectation of privacy David v. Macapagal-Arroyo PP 1017 case doctrines same as the ones above (related topics: freedom of expression; freedom to peaceably assemble) People v. Nuevas illegal possession of marijuana - in cases of searches incidental to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; warrantless search, when valid: 1) incidental to lawful arrest; 2) evidence in plain view [a) valid prior intrusion, police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties, b) evidence was inadvertently discovered, c) evidence immediately apparent,

d) plain view justified mere seizure with =out further search]; 3) search of moving vehicle; 4) consented warrantless search; 5) customs search; 6) stop and frisk; 7) exigent and emergency circumstances D. Searches and seizures of whatever nature for any purpose E. Warrantless Arrests Umil v. Ramos subversion a continuing offense - arrest without a warrant is justified if the person arrested in caught in flagrante delicto People v. Aminudin - M/V Wilcon; marijuana not caught in flagrante delicto; search was unreasonable; evidence inadmissible Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago pedophiles the rights granted in Section 2 are available to all persons including aliens, whether accused of a crime or not People v. Mengote suspicious man outside a person may not be stopped and frisked in broad daylight on a bust street on a mere unexplained suspicion Posadas v. Ombudsan Sigma Rho v. Scintilla Juris Arrest made without a valid warrant: Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court when in the presence of a police officer or a private individual: 1) the person arrested has committed, is actually committing, or attempting to commit an offense; 2) when an offense has actually been committed, and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested commited it; 3) when the person arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where his is serving final or temporary judgment (pending), escaped while being transferred Ladlad v. Velasco imprisoned by PP 1017; rebellion/sedition doctrine same as above and People v. De Gracia