People of the Philippines vs. Abdillah Pangcatan y Dimao

A warrantless arrest made two days after the commission of the crime, without the arresting officers having personal knowledge of facts indicating the accused committed the offense, is unlawful; consequently, a search incident to that unlawful arrest is likewise invalid, and any evidence seized therefrom is inadmissible. The Court further held that an accused who enters a plea and actively participates in trial waives any objection to the court's jurisdiction over his person, but the appellate court in an automatic review may still pass upon the validity of the arrest and the admissibility of evidence.

Abdillah Pangcatan y Dimao was a Philippine Army officer who was charged with three separate offenses before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City: illegal possession of explosives under Section 1 of R.A. No. 9516, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions under Section 28(e)(1) in relation to Section 28(a) of R.A. No. 10591, and murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The charges arose from the shooting death of Richelle Anne Marabe Austero on January 9, 2015, and the subsequent recovery of a hand grenade, a caliber .45 Norinco pistol, and ammunition from Pangcatan's person on January 11, 2015. The case involved the interplay between constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the State's interest in prosecuting serious crimes.

Abdillah Pangcatan y Dimao was charged with three offenses arising from the shooting death of Richelle Anne Marabe Austero on January 9, 2015, in Tagum City, Davao del Norte. On that date, Renante Cruz was weeding grass near the Sto. Niño Chapel, approximately 30 meters across a highway from Boarders Inn, when he saw two persons on a motorcycle about to enter the inn. He observed the male driver and female passenger fighting, and heard the woman, later identified as Richelle, shout "No, I will not!" Richelle then crossed the highway toward the chapel. The driver, later identified as Pangcatan, was wearing a black jacket, shorts, and had a bandage on his left knee, with a "flat top" haircut. When Richelle hailed a tricycle, Pangcatan blocked it, pointed his gun at the tricycle driver, and ordered Richelle to step out. When she refused, Pangcatan pointed his gun at her stomach and shot her twice, hitting her stomach and jaw, before fleeing on his motorcycle. Renante ran to Richelle and checked her pulse; police arrived ten minutes later.

Renante was taken to the police station where he narrated what he saw and identified Pangcatan from two photograph albums containing approximately 20 uniformly sized photos per album of criminals or suspected criminals. He learned that Pangcatan was an official of the Philippine Army and that his photo was in the album because he had been reported several times to the Women's Desk for complaints of violation of R.A. No. 9262. On January 11, 2015, Renante was invited back to the police station where he was shown three individuals standing side by side and identified the person standing in the middle, Pangcatan, as the shooter. After the identification, PO3 Quibrar arrested Pangcatan and read him his constitutional rights. PO3 Parcon then conducted a body search and confiscated a leather magazine pouch with belt, a black plastic pistol holster, a caliber .45 Norinco pistol with Serial No. BA02493 loaded with a magazine containing 7 rounds, an olive green sling bag containing four spare magazines each with five rounds, a grenade wrapped in a black pouch, and other items. When asked for a permit or license to carry the firearm, magazine, and grenade, Pangcatan failed to present any.

The Firearms and Explosives Office of the PNP issued a certification stating that Pangcatan was not a licensed or registered firearm holder of any kind, and that the caliber .45 Norinco pistol with Serial Number BA02493 was registered to Florante Gordolan y Olipas, with an expiry date of December 16, 2008. The Certificate of Death of Richelle confirmed that the immediate cause of her death was multiple gunshot wounds to the head and trunk. Lt. Col. Allan Odal confirmed that two days before the incident, Pangcatan asked to be excused from duty because of his knee injury.

Pangcatan, the sole witness for the defense, denied the allegations. He claimed that on January 9, 2015, he was in the hinterlands of Compostela Valley Province conducting intelligence work. He maintained that on January 11, 2015, he was invited by PSI Anjanette Tirador to the police station, and upon arrival, she asked him to remove the caliber .45 Norinco pistol from his waist, which he complied with, placing it inside his sling bag beside his feet. He was then asked to join a lineup with two other persons, after which PO3 Quibrar arrested him after being identified by a witness. He denied receiving any invitation from the police prior to January 11, 2015.

The RTC found Pangcatan guilty of all three offenses, ruling that the prosecution overwhelmingly discharged its burden for the possession charges, and that Renante's identification of Pangcatan as the shooter was credible. The RTC did not consider evident premeditation but did consider abuse of superior strength because Pangcatan was described as a man of height greater than Richelle with a build superior to hers, and he was armed with a gun. The CA affirmed with modification, adjusting the indeterminate penalty in Criminal Case No. 20345 and increasing the damages in Criminal Case No. 20346.

• Illegal Arrest and Admissibility of Evidence: Pangcatan argued that his warrantless arrest on January 11, 2015 was illegal, the body search conducted on him was likewise illegal, making all items recovered from him inadmissible in evidence, and the court did not acquire jurisdiction over him as his arrest was illegal.
• Appealability of Motion to Quash Denial: Pangcatan argued that the CA committed error in ruling that the denial of a Motion to Quash is not appealable.
• Suggestive Identification: Pangcatan argued that the photographs in the album the police showed Renante prior to the lineup were not presented in court, and that the alleged initial photographic identification and subsequent lineup identification were highly suggestive and influenced by the police officers, making Renante's out-of-court identification unreliable.
• In-Court Identification: Pangcatan argued that pre-trial identification is not sufficient and that the failure of the prosecution witness to positively identify the assailant in court is fatal to the prosecution's cause.

• Waiver of Objection: The prosecution maintained that Pangcatan's objection to the validity of his arrest was deemed waived when he entered a plea and actively participated in the trial.
• Validity of Arrest: The prosecution argued that the Tagum City Police had probable cause to arrest Pangcatan without a warrant because he was identified by an eyewitness from photographs, an invitation was sent to him, he was positively identified from a police lineup, and he was found in possession of a firearm, ammunition, and a hand grenade without authority.
• Credibility of Eyewitness: The prosecution argued that Renante's clear and categorical testimony positively identifying Pangcatan as the assailant deserved credence, and that the out-of-court identification was valid.

• Illegal Arrest and Admissibility of Evidence: Whether the issue of Pangcatan's alleged illegal arrest on January 11, 2015 and the admissibility of the evidence recovered from him is a proper subject matter in an automatic review.
• Illegal Possession of Explosives: Whether Pangcatan is guilty of illegal possession of explosives.
• Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions: Whether Pangcatan is guilty of illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions.
• Murder: Whether Pangcatan is guilty of murder.

• Illegal Arrest and Admissibility of Evidence: Yes. The alleged illegal arrest is a proper subject matter in an automatic review because an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review, and the appellate court can correct errors even if unassigned in the appealed judgment. However, Pangcatan is now estopped from assailing the court's jurisdiction over his person because he entered a plea and actively participated in the trial.
• Illegal Possession of Explosives: No. The crime of illegal possession of explosives was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because the hand grenade confiscated during the unlawful warrantless search is inadmissible, and the corpus delicti of the crime was not established.
• Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions: No. The crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because the firearm and ammunition confiscated during the unlawful warrantless search are inadmissible, and the corpus delicti of the crime was not established.
• Murder: Yes. The elements of murder were proven beyond reasonable doubt: Richelle was killed, Renante positively identified Pangcatan as the assailant, the killing was attended by abuse of superior strength, and the killing is not parricide or infanticide.

• Illegal Arrest and Admissibility of Evidence: The Court ruled that any objection to the arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived. However, in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review, and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors even if unassigned. Since Pangcatan timely raised the validity of his arrest in his Motion to Quash and to Suppress Evidence prior to arraignment, and repeatedly raised these arguments in a petition for certiorari before the CA, the Court may still review the validity of the arrest and the admissibility of the evidence. The Court found that Pangcatan's warrantless arrest was unlawful. At the time he was invited to the police station two days after the incident, he was not committing any crime, nor was it shown that he was about to do so or had just done so in the presence of the police officers. The arrest could not be justified under the in flagrante delicto exception. It also could not be validated under the hot pursuit exception because the elements require that an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has probable cause based on personal knowledge, with no appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the commission of the crime. Here, it took two days for the police to arrest him, a lapse inconsistent with the immediacy requirement. Since Renante positively identified Pangcatan from photos on January 9, 2015, the police had sufficient time to secure a warrant. Instead, they lured Pangcatan into custody under the guise of an invitation. The search incident to the unlawful arrest was likewise unlawful under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which requires a lawful arrest before a search can be made. The pieces of evidence obtained from the search are inadmissible.

• Illegal Possession of Explosives: The Court applied the elements for illegal possession of explosives: (a) the existence of the explosive; (b) ownership or possession of the explosive; and (c) lack of license to own or possess. Despite Pangcatan's own admission that he brought the confiscated firearm and ammunition for self-defense purposes, he cannot be held liable because the hand grenade confiscated during the warrantless search is inadmissible. Due to the inadmissibility of the hand grenade, the corpus delicti of the crime was not established.

• Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions: The Court applied the same elements for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions: (a) the existence of the firearm or ammunition; (b) ownership or possession of the firearm or ammunition; and (c) lack of license to own or possess. Due to the inadmissibility of the firearm and ammunition confiscated during the warrantless search, the corpus delicti of the crime was not established.

• Murder: The Court applied the elements of murder under Article 248 of the RPC: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. All elements were established. The Court upheld the out-of-court identification made by Renante, applying the totality of circumstances test from People vs. Teehankee, Jr.: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. Renante had an unobstructed view of the assailant from approximately 30 meters away, he described the assailant's clothes, motorcycle, and the bandage on his left knee—a distinguishing mark corroborated by Lt. Col. Odal's testimony about Pangcatan's knee wound. The identification was made immediately after the incident while details were fresh in his memory. The Court also applied the guidelines from People vs. Llamera for photographic identification: a series of photographs must be shown, and the arrangement should not suggest which picture pertains to the suspect. The police showed Renante two albums containing approximately 40 photos, and he identified Pangcatan in the middle of the second album. The Court found nothing suggestive in the procedure. The Court rejected Pangcatan's alibi because he failed to present proof that he was in Compostela Valley at the time of the shooting, and Lt. Col. Odal denied giving him any mission order. The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was properly considered because Pangcatan's height and build were superior to Richelle's, he was armed with a gun, and Richelle was defenseless. Evident premeditation was not established because the prosecution failed to show that Pangcatan plotted to kill Richelle; the shooting occurred while they were in the heat of an argument, leaving no opportunity for cool deliberation.

• Totality of Circumstances Test — In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts consider the following factors: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. The Court applied this test in upholding Renante's identification of Pangcatan, finding that his unobstructed view, immediate identification, and description of the distinguishing knee bandage satisfied the test.

• Hot Pursuit Arrest — The elements of a hot pursuit arrest are: (1) an offense has just been committed; and (2) the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. There must be no appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the commission of the crime; otherwise, a warrant of arrest must be secured. The Court found that the two-day lapse between the shooting and Pangcatan's arrest was inconsistent with the immediacy requirement, rendering the arrest unlawful.

• Search Incident to Lawful Arrest — Under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, 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. To constitute a valid warrantless search under this provision, the arrest must be lawfully made on the basis of probable cause under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules. It requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made, and this process cannot be reversed. The Court held that since Pangcatan's arrest was unlawful, the search incident to it was likewise unlawful, and the evidence seized was inadmissible.

• Waiver of Objection to Illegal Arrest — Any objection to the arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived. An accused submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court upon entering a plea and participating actively in the trial, which precludes him from invoking any irregularity that may have attended his arrest. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Pangcatan was estopped from assailing the court's jurisdiction over his person, even though his arrest was unlawful.

• Alibi — For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish that: (1) he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime; and (2) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. The Court rejected Pangcatan's alibi because he failed to present any proof that he was in Compostela Valley at the time of the shooting, and Lt. Col. Odal denied giving him any mission order.

• Abuse of Superior Strength — An attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superior strength due to his sex and the weapon used in the act. The Court applied this doctrine in affirming the murder conviction, finding that Pangcatan's superior height and build, combined with his use of a gun against an unarmed and defenseless victim, established the qualifying circumstance.

• "The fact that the search incident to Pangcatan's unlawful arrest resulted in the seizure of firearm, ammunition, and a hand grenade he was allegedly not authorized to carry cannot rectify the defect of the illegal arrest preceding the search. The apprehending officers would not have seen these items had Pangcatan not been subjected to a body search following his illegal arrest." — This passage articulates the exclusionary principle that evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest and search is inadmissible, forming the basis for the acquittal on the possession charges.

• "Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. Since corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity of in-court identification during the trial of the case, courts have fashioned out rules to assure its fairness and its compliance with the requirements of constitutional due process." — This passage from People vs. Teehankee, Jr., quoted by the Court, defines the framework for evaluating the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identifications.

• "It is known that the most natural reaction of a witness to a crime is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrator and to observe the manner in which the offense is perpetrated. Most often the face of the assailant and body movements thereof, create a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from a witness's memory." — This passage from People vs. Esoy, quoted by the Court, supports the reliability of Renante's identification, explaining why eyewitnesses can remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of criminals.

• People vs. Teehankee, Jr., 319 Phil. 128 (1995) — Controlling precedent for the totality of circumstances test in evaluating the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identifications; the Court applied its six-factor test to uphold Renante's identification of Pangcatan.
• People vs. Llamera, 830 Phil. 607 (2018) — Followed for the guidelines on the validity of out-of-court identification through photographs: a series of photographs must be shown, and their arrangement should not suggest which one pertains to the suspect.
• Pestilos vs. Generoso, 746 Phil. 301 (2014) — Followed for the elements of a hot pursuit arrest and the reason for the immediacy requirement, explaining that as the time gap widens, information becomes prone to contamination.
• People vs. Del Rosario, 746 Phil. 301 (2014) — Followed for the principle that an arrest made a day after the commission of the crime fails the immediacy requirement, especially when the arresting officers were not eyewitnesses.
• People vs. Cendana, 268 Phil. 571 (1990) — Followed for the principle that an arrest made one day after the killing on the basis of information from unnamed sources is unlawful and invalid.
• People vs. Esoy, 631 Phil. 547 (2010) — Followed for the principle that the natural reaction of a witness to a crime is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrator, supporting the reliability of eyewitness identification.
• Kummer vs. People, 717 Phil. 670 (2013) — Followed for the principle that affidavits are usually abbreviated and incomplete, and that testimony given in open court prevails over ex parte affidavits.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Followed for the prevailing jurisprudence setting civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages at P75,000.00 each for murder.
• People vs. Lara, 692 Phil. 469 (2012) — Followed for the principle that an accused submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court upon entering a plea and participating actively in the trial.
• People vs. Alejandro, 807 Phil. 221 (2017) — Followed for the principle that an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review, and the appellate court can correct errors even if unassigned.
• Peralta vs. People, 817 Phil. 554 (2017) — Followed for the principle that a valid warrantless search under Section 13, Rule 126 requires a lawful arrest first, and this process cannot be reversed.
• Saluday vs. People, 829 Phil. 65 (2018) — Followed for the elements of illegal possession of firearms, ammunition, or explosives: existence, possession, and lack of license.
• People vs. Dela Cruz, 452 Phil. 1080 (2003) — Followed for the principle that there is no law requiring a police investigation or police lineup as a condition sine qua non for the proper identification of an accused.
• People vs. Ramos, 715 Phil. 193 (2013) — Followed for the elements of the defense of alibi.
• People vs. Vergara, 714 Phil. 702 (2014) — Followed for the principle that bare denial and alibi constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness.
• People vs. Roxas, 457 Phil. 577 (2003) — Followed for the principle that an attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superior strength.

• Section 1, R.A. No. 9516 — The provision defining and penalizing illegal possession of explosives; the Court held that the crime was not proven because the hand grenade was inadmissible.
• Section 28(e)(1) in relation to Section 28(a), Article V, R.A. No. 10591 — The provision defining and penalizing illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions; the Court held that the crime was not proven because the firearm and ammunition were inadmissible.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — The provision defining and penalizing murder; the Court applied its elements and affirmed the conviction, with abuse of superior strength as the qualifying circumstance.
• Article 63, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — The provision governing the application of penalties when there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances; the Court applied it to affirm the penalty of reclusion perpetua for murder.
• Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court — The provision enumerating the instances when a warrantless arrest may be made; the Court found that none of the exceptions applied to Pangcatan's arrest.
• Section 13, Rule 126, Rules of Court — The provision governing search incident to lawful arrest; the Court held that the search was unlawful because the arrest preceding it was unlawful.
• Section 9, Rule 117, Rules of Court — The provision on the waiver of objections to the arrest; the Court applied it to hold that Pangcatan was estopped from assailing the court's jurisdiction over his person.

Leonen (Chairperson), Gesmundo, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ., concurred.