Macabuhay vs. People

The inclusion of "bladed instruments" in the definition of "deadly weapons" in COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 is null and void for being ultra vires, because the Omnibus Election Code and RA No. 7166 only prohibit bearing, carrying, or transporting firearms and other regulated deadly weapons—those for which a license is needed to possess or carry and for which the COMELEC may issue an authorization during the election period—and bladed instruments, being unregulated and not subject to licensing, fall outside the ambit of the prohibition.

Republic Act No. 7166 prohibits any person from bearing, carrying, or transporting firearms or other deadly weapons in public places during the election period unless authorized in writing by the COMELEC. To implement this prohibition during the 2019 National and Local Elections, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 10446 on November 21, 2018, defining "deadly weapon" to include bladed instruments, hand grenades, or other explosives. On December 13, 2018, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 10468 providing guidelines for the establishment and operation of checkpoints nationwide to enforce the firearms ban. The election period ran from January 13 to June 12, 2019.

On January 31, 2019, an Information was filed charging Virgilio Macabuhay y Payas with violation of Section 2(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 10446, in relation to Section 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 32 of RA No. 7166, for carrying a deadly weapon—a fan knife—during the 2019 election period without COMELEC authorization. Macabuhay pleaded "not guilty" at arraignment, and trial ensued.

According to the prosecution, during the 2019 election period a checkpoint was set up along the National Highway in Barangay West Talaongan, Cavinti, Laguna, directly across the police station. Police Officer II Ranil G. Perez and Police Officer I Ronald P. Perea were among those posted at the checkpoint. On January 30, 2019, at approximately 2:00 p.m., the officers observed a motorcycle approaching, driven by a man who was not wearing a helmet—later identified as Macabuhay. An officer at the first barrier signaled for Macabuhay to stop, but he failed to comply, prompting PO2 Perez and PO1 Perea to block his path at the second barrier. When PO2 Perez inquired about the missing helmet and asked for his driver's license and vehicle registration, Macabuhay was unable to present either, explaining that the motorcycle belonged to his friend, Jessie A. Tablico.

During the interaction, the officers observed that Macabuhay appeared restless and visibly nervous. As he alighted from the motorcycle, they noticed a knife tucked into his waistband. When asked to lift his shirt, Macabuhay complied, revealing a fan knife, or balisong, measuring approximately 11 inches in length. Prior to confiscation, Macabuhay was photographed with the fan knife still tucked in his waistband. He was then arrested, and the knife was marked with the initials "VPM."

Macabuhay, testifying as the lone defense witness, admitted that he was not wearing a helmet and lacked a driver's license, but denied the charge, claiming it was a fabrication by the police officers. He averred that after alighting from the motorcycle, he was frisked and his phone and wallet were taken. He was ordered to open the motorcycle compartment but refused, causing the officers to open it forcibly. Thereafter, one of the officers lifted his shirt and tucked a fan knife in his right waist, then photographed him. He was taken to the police station without being informed of the reason for his arrest. He suspected the arrest was related to his drug case in Lumban, Laguna, to which he had pleaded guilty, and his inclusion on the tokhang list in Cavinti, Laguna.

The RTC found Macabuhay guilty beyond reasonable doubt, determining that he was in possession of a fan knife within the election period while riding a motorcycle and had failed to present any COMELEC authority to possess the knife. The CA affirmed, holding that all elements of the offense were established and that the warrantless arrest and search were valid under the plain view doctrine, with the presumption of regularity unrebutted.

• Constitutionality/Ultra Vires of COMELEC Resolution: Petitioner argued that COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 is unconstitutional, citing Buella vs. People, where the Court held that "deadly weapons" does not include bladed instruments. He insisted that both Section 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 32 of RA No. 7166 pertain only to firearms and explosives, and that the COMELEC exceeded its authority by expanding the term to include bladed instruments, rendering Resolution No. 10446 ultra vires.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Petitioner argued that the credibility of PO2 Perez and PO1 Perea, upon whose testimonies the prosecution's case rested, had been destroyed by their inconsistent and unconvincing statements.
• Invalidity of Warrantless Arrest and Search: Petitioner contended that there was neither a valid warrantless arrest nor a lawful search under the plain view doctrine. He argued that the warrantless search was not incidental to a lawful arrest because he was not placed under arrest prior to the search and seizure. He also insisted the plain view doctrine did not apply because the officers had to ask him to lift his shirt, and the fan knife was too small to appear as a bulge under a shirt.
• Traffic Violation as Basis for Arrest: Petitioner argued that there is no basis for a warrantless arrest when a person is flagged down for a mere traffic violation, since the penalty is a fine, not imprisonment. Because he was flagged down for not wearing a helmet and for being unable to show registration papers, there was no reason to arrest him, making the fan knife inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.

• Validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 10446: Whether the inclusion of "bladed instruments" in the definition of "deadly weapons" in COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 is ultra vires, exceeding the scope of the COMELEC's quasi-legislative authority under the Omnibus Election Code and RA No. 7166.
• Validity of Warrantless Arrest and Search: Whether the warrantless arrest of and concomitant search on petitioner at the checkpoint were valid, and whether the seized fan knife is admissible as evidence.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved the elements of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

• Validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 10446: Yes, in petitioner's favor. The inclusion of "bladed instruments" in the definition of "deadly weapons" in COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 is null and void for being ultra vires, as the Omnibus Election Code and RA No. 7166 only prohibit regulated deadly weapons requiring licenses or permits.
• Validity of Warrantless Arrest and Search: Yes, the search was valid. The police officers had probable cause to conduct the warrantless search based on petitioner's attempt to evade the checkpoint and failure to produce a driver's license and registration documents, and the plain view doctrine also applied.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: No. Although possession during the election period in a public place was established, the fan knife does not qualify as a "deadly weapon" under the law, so no election offense was committed and petitioner must be acquitted.

• Validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 10446: The COMELEC's quasi-legislative power, derived from Article IX(c), Section 2(1) of the Constitution, is subject to the limitation that it must be within the ambit of legislative authority. The COMELEC's authority to issue resolutions on the bearing, carrying, or transporting of firearms or other deadly weapons is necessarily confined to the scope provided by the Omnibus Election Code and RA No. 7166. Section 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code, titled "Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business," contemplates only firearms, as evident from both its title and express terms. Section 32 of RA No. 7166, titled "Who May Bear Firearms," appears to expand the scope by referencing "other deadly weapons," but the title restricts the term through the specific mention of firearms, and the qualifying phrases "even if licensed to possess or carry the same" and "unless authorized in writing by the Commission" apply equally to firearms and deadly weapons—meaning the deadly weapon must be one that is regulated or requires a license, and one for which the COMELEC may issue an authorization. Bladed instruments are not regulated, require no license to possess, and the COMELEC does not issue permits for their possession or use during the election period. In Buella vs. People, the Court declared the identical inclusion of bladed instruments in COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 null and void. Because the pertinent provisions of COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 are similarly or identically worded to those in Resolution No. 10015, the ruling in Buella was applied: the inclusion of "bladed instruments" in Rule I, Section 1(l) of COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 is null and void. The COMELEC itself recognized the Buella doctrine by expressly excluding bladed instruments from the definition of deadly weapon in Rule I, Section 1(n) of COMELEC Resolution No. 11067, promulgated on September 25, 2024, for the May 12, 2025 elections. Penal laws must be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused; under the doctrine of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, there is no crime when there is no law punishing it.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest and Search: Military or police checkpoints, being variants of searching moving vehicles, are not inherently illegal when justified by public order exigencies and conducted with minimal intrusion. While routine inspection is the general rule, vehicles may be extensively searched when probable cause justifies a reasonable belief that the motorist is a law offender or the vehicle contains instruments of an offense. Petitioner's attempt to evade the checkpoint by ignoring the officers' signal to stop, combined with his failure to produce a driver's license and motorcycle registration documents, reasonably raised suspicion that he had stolen the motorcycle—constituting probable cause. The Court distinguished this from a mere traffic violation, noting the arrest was based on evasive behavior and failure to produce documents, not on the traffic infraction itself. The Court relied on People vs. Vinecario, People vs. Suico, and Uy vs. People, where similar circumstances—evasive behavior, nervousness, failure to produce documents, or attempted flight—constituted probable cause for warrantless searches at checkpoints. Additionally, the plain view doctrine applied: the CA found that petitioner's shirt lifted while he was alighting from the motorcycle, allowing the officers to notice the fan knife tucked into his waist. Unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in that position are subject to seizure. The Court found no basis to disturb the factual findings of the lower courts.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The elements of the offense under Section 2(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 are: (1) the person is bearing, carrying, or transporting firearms or other deadly weapons; (2) such possession occurs during the election period; and (3) the weapon is carried in a public place. While the lower courts found all elements present—petitioner possessed a fan knife during the 2019 election period in a public place without COMELEC authorization—the fan knife does not qualify as a "deadly weapon" under the law because bladed instruments are excluded from the prohibition. Since the Omnibus Election Code and RA No. 7166 do not prohibit the possession of bladed instruments during the election period, petitioner's mere possession of a bladed instrument in a public place without a COMELEC permit does not constitute an election offense. Petitioner must be acquitted consistent with the principle that penal laws are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused, and the doctrine of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege.

• Ultra Vires Quasi-Legislative Power — The COMELEC's exercise of quasi-legislative power is subject to the limitation that it must be within the ambit of legislative authority granted by the enabling statutes. The COMELEC cannot expand the coverage of election laws to criminalize acts not criminalized under statutory law. A deadly weapon, to fall within the election offense prohibition, must be: (1) one which is regulated or one for which a license is needed to possess or carry the same; and (2) one for which the COMELEC may issue an authorization to possess or carry during the election period. Bladed instruments, being unregulated and not subject to licensing, do not meet either criterion. The Court applied this doctrine by declaring the inclusion of "bladed instruments" in COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 null and void, following the precedent in Buella vs. People.

• Plain View Doctrine — Unlawful objects within 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 presented in evidence. Applied in this case where petitioner's shirt lifted while he was alighting from the motorcycle, allowing the apprehending officers to notice the fan knife tucked into his waist.

• Probable Cause for Checkpoint Search — While motorists and vehicles passing through checkpoints may generally be subjected only to routine inspection, vehicles may be stopped and extensively searched when there is probable cause justifying a reasonable belief that the motorist is a law offender or the vehicle contains instruments of an offense. Evasive behavior at a checkpoint and failure to produce a driver's license and registration documents constitute probable cause. This is a variant of the search of moving vehicles exception to the warrant requirement.

• Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege — There is no crime when there is no law punishing it. Applied to acquit petitioner because bladed instruments are not prohibited by the Omnibus Election Code or RA No. 7166, and the COMELEC's inclusion of them in Resolution No. 10446 was ultra vires and void.

• Strict Construction of Penal Laws — Penal laws are to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. Applied to support the acquittal, as the statutory prohibition could not be expanded by administrative regulation to cover bladed instruments.

• "COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 expanded the coverage of the Omnibus Election Code and [Republic Act] No. 7166 by including 'bladed instruments' in the list of prohibited weapons during an election period. The prohibition under the said laws extends only to regulated deadly weapons. Bladed instruments are not regulated and, thus, do not fall within the ambit of the prohibition. By including bladed instruments in the prohibition, COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 criminalizes acts not criminalized under statutory law." — This quotation, drawn from Buella vs. People and reproduced in the decision, articulates the ratio decidendi that the COMELEC exceeded its quasi-legislative authority by expanding the statutory prohibition to include unregulated bladed instruments.

• "the deadly weapon must be: (1) one which is regulated or one for which a license is needed to possess or carry the same; and (2) one for which the COMELEC may issue an authorization to possess or carry during the election period." — This is the canonical two-part test formulated in Buella vs. People for determining what constitutes a "deadly weapon" under the election gun ban statutes, and is the doctrinal formulation applied to exclude bladed instruments from the prohibition.

• "Considering that the Omnibus Election Code and Republic Act No. 7166 do not prohibit the possession of bladed instruments during the election period, as they are neither regulated by law nor subject to licensing or permit requirements, it is clear that petitioner's mere possession of a bladed instrument in a public place without the requisite COMELEC permit during the 2019 election period does not constitute an election offense." — This passage applies the Buella ruling to the instant case and states the conclusion that petitioner's conduct does not amount to an election offense.

• "All told, petitioner must be absolved of any criminal liability, consistent with the doctrine of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege—there is no crime when there is no law punishing it." — This is the concluding statement of the ruling, invoking the fundamental principle of criminal law to justify the acquittal.

• Buella vs. People, 939 Phil. 537 (2023) — Controlling precedent. The Court, sitting En Banc, declared that bladed instruments are excluded from the term "deadly weapons" under COMELEC Resolution No. 10015, holding that the COMELEC exceeded its quasi-legislative authority by criminalizing possession of unregulated bladed instruments. This ruling was applied directly to COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 in the instant case because the pertinent provisions defining "deadly weapon" and "prohibited acts" are similarly or identically worded.

• People vs. Ildefonso, G.R. No. 249858 (February 19, 2025) — Followed precedent. The Court applied Buella to acquit Ildefonso of possession of a 10-inch knife during the election period under COMELEC Resolution No. 9561-A, demonstrating consistent application of the Buella doctrine to similar cases involving bladed instruments.

• People vs. Vinecario, 465 Phil. 192 (2004) — Cited for the proposition that probable cause to conduct a warrantless search at a checkpoint arises from evasive behavior, suspicious conduct, and false claims made to deter inspection.

• People vs. Suico, 840 Phil. 1 (2018) — Cited for the proposition that abrupt U-turns and attempts to flee at checkpoints constitute probable cause justifying a warrantless search.

• Uy vs. People, 920 Phil. 107 (2022) — Cited for the proposition that failure to present motorcycle registration documents at a checkpoint raises suspicion of theft, constituting probable cause for a warrantless search.

• People vs. Tudtud, 458 Phil. 752 (2003) — Cited for the qualification that while a warrantless arrest must generally precede a warrantless search, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest may validly precede the arrest if police already had probable cause at the outset.

• Section 261(q), Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Prohibits carrying firearms outside one's residence or place of business during the election period unless authorized in writing by the COMELEC. The Court held that this provision, titled "Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business," contemplates only firearms, as evident from both its title and express terms, and does not extend to bladed instruments.

• Section 32, Republic Act No. 7166 — Prohibits bearing, carrying, or transporting firearms or other deadly weapons in public places during the election period unless authorized by the COMELEC. The Court held that the reference to "other deadly weapons" is restricted by the section title "Who May Bear Firearms" and by the qualifying phrases "even if licensed to possess or carry the same" and "unless authorized in writing by the Commission," limiting the prohibition to regulated weapons for which licenses or permits are required.

• Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court recognized this as the general rule, subject to recognized exceptions including warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, plain view, search of moving vehicles, and stop and frisk.

• Rule 113, Section 5, Rules of Court — Provides for instances when a lawful arrest may be effected without a warrant, including in flagrante delicto arrests. The Court found that the arrest fell under this provision, as petitioner's evasive behavior and failure to produce documents constituted probable cause that he was engaged in unlawful activity.

• Article IX(c), Section 2(1), 1987 Constitution — Empowers the COMELEC to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections. The Court noted this as the constitutional basis for the COMELEC's quasi-legislative power, which is subject to the limitation that it must remain within the scope of legislative authority.

• Section 2(a), COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 — Prohibits bearing, carrying, or transporting firearms or deadly weapons outside one's residence or place of business and in public places during the election period unless authorized by the COMELEC. Declared valid in its application to firearms and regulated weapons, but null and void insofar as it includes bladed instruments.

• Rule I, Section 1(l), COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 — Defines "deadly weapon" as including bladed instruments, hand grenades, or other explosives, except pyrotechnics. Declared null and void for being ultra vires, as the COMELEC exceeded its legislative authority by including bladed instruments, which are not regulated under the enabling statutes.

Hernando, Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concurred.