People vs. Evaristo and Carillo

The warrantless seizure of firearms is valid under the plain view doctrine when the officer is lawfully present in the location and the discovery is inadvertent, and the prohibition against unlawful possession under P.D. No. 1866 extends to all firearms, whether functional or not, and even to parts thereof.

Appellants Santiago Evaristo and Noli Carillo were arrested on August 23, 1988, in Mendez, Cavite, after police officers on routine patrol heard successive bursts of gunfire. The officers pursued a man, Barequiel Rosillo, who was seen firing a gun, to the vicinity of Evaristo's house. There, they encountered the slightly inebriated appellants and subsequently seized firearms from Carillo's person and from within Evaristo's house, leading to their indictment for illegal possession of firearms.

• Nature of the Action: The case involved a criminal prosecution for illegal possession of firearms and paraphernalia under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866.
• The Apprehension: On August 23, 1988, a Philippine Constabulary and INP patrol heard gunfire in Barangay III, Mendez, Cavite. They saw Barequiel Rosillo firing a gun into the air. Rosillo fled to the nearby house of appellant Santiago Evaristo. The patrol pursued him.
• Seizure from Carillo: Upon reaching the house's porch, the patrol found appellants Evaristo and Noli Carillo. Sgt. Vallarta noticed a bulge on Carillo's waist. A frisk revealed a .38 revolver (paltik). Carillo had no license for it.
• Seizure from Evaristo's House: Sgt. Romeroso sought and was granted permission by Evaristo to enter the house to look for Rosillo. Inside the sala, Romeroso did not find Rosillo but discovered firearms and repair tools in plain view.
• Defense Version: The appellants denied ownership of the firearms, claiming they were forcibly taken and the evidence was planted by the police.
• Trial Court Findings: The trial court gave credence to the prosecution witnesses and convicted the appellants.

• Admissibility of Evidence: The prosecution maintained that the firearms were seized lawfully. The firearm from Carillo was seized incidental to a valid warrantless arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(b), as the officers had personal knowledge of facts (the gunfire and the bulge) indicating Carillo's commission of an offense. The firearms from Evaristo's house were admissible under the plain view doctrine, as Sgt. Romeroso was lawfully inside with permission and discovered them inadvertently while looking for a suspect.
• Scope of P.D. No. 1866: The prosecution argued that the law penalizes possession of any firearm or part thereof, without distinction as to functionality.

• Illegal Search and Seizure: The appellants contended that the seized firearms (Exhibits "B" to "F") were inadmissible as they were the product of an illegal search. They disputed the validity of the warrantless arrest and the subsequent search.
• Statutory Coverage: The appellants argued that the seized items, alleged to be non-functional or homemade, did not fall within the contemplation of "firearms" under P.D. No. 1866.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The appellants challenged the prosecution witnesses' testimonies as inconsistent and contrived, pointing to discrepancies regarding the number of people present at the scene.

• Admissibility of Evidence: Whether the warrantless seizure of the firearms from Carillo's person and from Evaristo's house violated the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, rendering the evidence inadmissible.
• Statutory Interpretation: Whether Presidential Decree No. 1866 applies to the possession of non-functional or homemade firearms and paraphernalia.

• Admissibility of Evidence: The seizure of the firearms was valid and the evidence was admissible. The firearm taken from Carillo was seized incidental to a lawful warrantless arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(b). The officers' personal knowledge of the gunfire and the visible bulge on Carillo's person constituted probable cause. The firearms found in Evaristo's house were lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine, as Sgt. Romeroso was lawfully present inside the house with the owner's consent and discovered the items inadvertently while looking for a fugitive.
• Statutory Interpretation: P.D. No. 1866 applies to the seized items. The law penalizes the unlawful possession of "any firearm, part of firearm, ammunition..." and draws no distinction between functional and non-functional firearms. The principle ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus (where the law does not distinguish, we ought not distinguish) applies.

• Plain View Doctrine — Objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure without a warrant, provided the discovery is inadvertent. The Court applied this to affirm the seizure of firearms inside Evaristo's house, as the officer was lawfully inside with permission and did not initially enter to search for them.
• Warrantless Arrest under Rule 113, Sec. 5(b) — A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant when an offense has just been committed and the officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating the person arrested committed it. The Court held that hearing gunfire and observing a suspicious bulge on the appellant's person constituted such personal knowledge, validating the arrest and the incidental search of Carillo.

• "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." — This passage reaffirms the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.
• "The law makes no distinction as to serviceable or functional firearms. Indeed, the possession of even a part of a firearm is sufficient to come within the prohibitive ambit of the statute." — This excerpt clarifies the broad scope of P.D. No. 1866.

• People v. Sucro, G.R. No. 93239, March 18, 1991, 195 SCRA 388 — Cited as controlling authority for the principle that an offense is considered committed in the presence of an officer who hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene, thereby supporting the validity of the warrantless arrest.
• Harris v. U.S., 390 U.S. 324 and Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 — Cited as the U.S. Supreme Court origins of the plain view doctrine adopted in Philippine jurisprudence.

• Article III, Sections 2 and 3(2), 1987 Constitution — Cited as the constitutional basis prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained thereby. The Court analyzed the seizure under these provisions to determine its reasonableness.
• Section 5, Rule 113, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Applied to validate the warrantless arrest of Carillo under paragraph (b), which allows arrest when an offense has just been committed and the officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating the arrested person's guilt.
• Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1866 — The substantive penal provision under which the appellants were convicted. The Court interpreted its language to cover all firearms, functional or not.

• Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino
• Justice Jose C. Vitug (Note: The decision text lists Bellosillo, J. as concurring; however, standard records indicate Vitug was part of the Division. The digest should reflect the names provided in the ponencia: Griño-Aquino and Bellosillo, JJ.)
• Justice Santiago M. Kapunan (Note: The separate opinion is by Justice Cruz, who concurred in part.)

• Justice Isagani A. Cruz — Concurred with the majority regarding the validity of the search of Evaristo's house under consent and plain view. However, dissented on the validity of the warrantless search of Carillo. Argued that the search did not fall under any of the circumstances in Rule 113, Section 5, as the officers were pursuing Rosillo, not Carillo, and lacked personal knowledge that Carillo had committed the offense of illegal possession. The search was therefore void ab initio, and the seized firearm was inadmissible as a "fruit of the poisonous tree."