One late afternoon in a small barangay of Mendez, Cavite, five police
officers were on routine patrol duty when they heard the sound of
successive gunshots in the vicinity and found a man firing a gun into
the air. The man saw the patrol and immediately ran away to a nearby
house where the police officers pursued him. They found two (2) slightly
inebriated individuals drinking on the porch of the house. The
inebriated individuals informed the police men that the man they were
chasing had already escaped through the window of the house.
One
of the police men, however, observed a noticeable bulge around the waist
of one of the men who later on admitted he was carrying a .38 caliber
revolver. Moreover, he did not have a valid license to carry the
firearm, which led to the confiscation of his revolver. The policeman
asked the owner of the house if he could search the house for the man
firing the gun, and the owner consented. In the sala, they found more
firearms as well as other paraphernalia used in the repair and
manufacture of firearms. Both the owner of the house and the individual
carrying the firearm were indicted for illegal possession of firearms
under Sec. 1, Presidential Decree No. 1866.
The two accused denied
owning or possessing any of the confiscated firearms. They further
alleged that the firearms and gun paraphernalia were illegally seized in
violation of their constitutional rights. The trial court found both
men guilty.
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.
On appeal, the Supreme Court sustained the
trial court’s decision ruling that the search that led to the seizure
of the firearm and gunfire paraphernalia was a reasonable search based
on the plain view doctrine. Citing Harris v. U.S. and Coolidge v. New
Hampshire, the plain view doctrine provides 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.
The
Court reminded that Sec. 2, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution, only prohibits
unreasonable searches and seizures and this rule is subject to several
exceptions.
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 (People v. Evaristo, G.R. No. 93828, 11 December 1992, J. Padilla).
source: Manila Times' Column of Benchpress
No comments:
Post a Comment