Valeroso vs.

CA
Facts:

1.
Senior Inspector (Sr. Insp.) Valeroso was charged with violation of PD
1866.
o He had in his possession a 1 cal. 38 "Charter Arms" revolver with
five (5) live ammo without authority.
Prosecution presented 2 witnesses SP02 Disuanco and Deriquito. Their
testimonies were:
o SP02 Disuanco received a dispatch order which directed him and 3
other personnel to serve a warrant of arrest against Valeroso in a
case for kidnapping with ransom.
o After briefing, team conducted necessary surveillance on Valeroso,
checking his hideouts in Cavite, Caloocan and Bulacan. Then, the
team proceeded to the Integrated National Police Central Station in
Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw Valeroso as he was about to
board a tricycle.
o SPO2 Disuanco and his team approached Valeroso. They put him
under arrest, informed him of his constitutional rights, and bodily
searched him. Found tucked in his waist was a Charter Arms,
bearing Serial Number 52315 with five (5) live ammunition.
o Valeroso was brought to the police station for questioning. A
verification of the subject firearm at the Firearms and Explosives
Division at Camp Crame revealed that it was not issued to the
petitioner but to another person.
o Valeroso was then charged with illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition under PD No. 1866 as amended.
Valeroso, on the other hand, testified that he was awakened by 4 heavily
armed men in civilian attire who pointed their guns at him. He was taken
out of the room and tied his hands. They ransacked a locked cabinet and
found a gun. A person from the team shouted, Hoy, may nakuha akong
baril sa loob!

RTC RULING: Convicted Valeroso.

CA RULING: Affirmed RTCs ruling.

ISSUES:

Valeroso filed Petition for Review before SC AFFIRMED CAs ruling.

This is now Letter-Appeal to SC to once more take a contemplative
reflection and deliberation on the case, focusing on his breached
constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

2.

If Valeroso should be acquitted - YES

focusing on his constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure alleged to have been violated by the
arresting police officers
If so, would render the confiscated firearm and ammunition
inadmissible in evidence against him.

Ratio:

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by Section

2, Article III of the Constitution. This provision provides that as a as a
general rule, the procurement of a warrant is required before a law enforcer
can validly search or seize the person, house, papers, or effects of any
individual.
Furthermore, Article III, Section 3(2) provides, that "any evidence
obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in
evidence for any purpose in any proceeding."

The above proscriptions are NOT ABSOLUTE. There are instances wherein a
searches and seizures are allowed even without a valid warrant:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

Seizure in plain view
Search of a moving vehicle
Consented warrantless search;
Customs search;
Stop and Frisk;
Exigent and emergency circumstances.
Search of vessels and aircraft;
Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire,
sanitary and building regulations.

In the exceptional instances where a warrant is not necessary to effect a

valid search or seizure, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search
or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness
of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or
seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the
search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character
of the articles procured.

IN THIS CASE, warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition
is NOT VALID.

For one, the warrantless search could not be justified as an incident to a

lawful arrest.
This is provided by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which
reads: 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.
For it to be a valid warrantless search and seizure, the seizure of evidence or
dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the
area of his immediate control.

From the narration of facts of Valeroso, it can be concluded that the arresting
officers served the warrant of arrest without any resistance from Valeroso. They
placed him immediately under their control by pulling him out of the bed, and
bringing him out of the room with his hands tied. To be sure, the cabinet which,
according to Valeroso, was locked, could no longer be considered as an "area

within his immediate control" because there was no way for him to take any
weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used against him.
It is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception (warrantless search as an
incident to a lawful arrest) is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by
the person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent
the latter from destroying evidence within reach.
The exception, therefore, should not be strained beyond what is needed to serve its
purpose. In the case at bar, search was made in the locked cabinet which cannot be
said to have been within Valerosos immediate control. Thus, the search exceeded
the bounds of what may be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest.
Valeroso is ACQUITTED.
Note:
The Letter-Appeal is actually in the nature of a second motion for reconsideration.
While a second motion for reconsideration is, as a general rule, a prohibited
pleading, it is within the sound discretion of the Court to admit the same, provided it
is filed with prior leave whenever substantive justice may be better served thereby.