People v.

Evaristo
G.R. No. 93828, December 11, 1992

FACTS:
A contingent of peace officers, while on routine patrol duty, heard successive bursts of gunfire
and proceeded to the approximate source of the same where 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 peace
officers to pursue him. Upon approaching the immediate perimeter of the house, the patrol chanced
upon the slightly inebriated appellants, Evaristo and Carillo. Inquiring as to the whereabouts of Rosillo,
the officers 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. Evaristo was, then, found guilty of illegal
possession of firearms but contended that the seizure of the evidence is inadmissible because it was not
authorized by a valid warrant.

ISSUE: WON the search and seizure of firearms from Evaristo and Carillo were valid?

RULING:
YES, they were valid.
It is to be noted that what the Constitution prohibits 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. 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.
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 firearms seized from the appellant Carillo, the Court sustains the validly of
the firearm's seizure and admissibility in evidence, based on the rule on authorized warrantless arrests.
Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that a peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person 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.
Here, the peace officers, while on patrol, heard bursts of gunfire and this 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 Philippines v. Sucro, "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."
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. Giving chase to
Rosillo, the peace officers, themselves, came upon the two (2) appellants who were then asked
concerning Rosillo's whereabouts. At that point, Sgt. Vallarta, himself, 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.