Picardal vs. People

A warrantless search cannot be justified as a search incidental to a lawful arrest where the offense allegedly committed is punishable by fine only, since no lawful warrantless arrest can be made for such an offense; evidence obtained from the resulting illegal search is inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. The process cannot be reversed: a lawful arrest must precede the search.

Ramon Picardal y Baluyot was charged by Information with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms for allegedly having in his possession and control one caliber .38 revolver loaded with five live ammunitions without the necessary license or permit from the proper authorities. The charge arose from a police encounter in the City of Manila, where officers of the Ermita Police Station were on beat patrol. The offense of urinating in a public place is governed by MMDA Regulation No. 96-009, which prohibits the act and imposes a penalty of a fine of five hundred pesos (PhP500.00) or community service of one day, without providing for imprisonment. The firearm involved was subsequently examined by the Firearm and Explosive Division (FED) of the PNP, which issued a certification that Picardal was not a licensed or registered firearm holder of any kind or caliber.

An Information was filed against Ramon Picardal y Baluyot for Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms, alleging that on or about March 28, 2014, in the City of Manila, he willfully and unlawfully had in his possession and under his control one caliber .38 revolver loaded with five live ammunitions, without first having secured the necessary license or permit from the proper authorities. When arraigned, Picardal pleaded not guilty, and pre-trial and trial on the merits followed.

According to the prosecution, PO1 Mark Anthony Peniano, a regular member of the Philippine National Police assigned at the Ermita Police Station at the Baseco PNP Compound, Port Area, Manila, was on beat patrol with PO1 William Cristobal and PO1 Rodrigo Co on March 27, 2014 at around 8:00 o'clock in the evening. On their way back to the station, they chanced upon a person urinating against a wall and approached him; the person was later identified as Picardal. The place was well-lighted as it was within the main road. PO1 Peniano told Picardal that it was forbidden to urinate in public and, in view of the violation, invited him to go with them to the precinct. When PO1 Peniano was about to handcuff him, Picardal attempted to run, but the attempt failed because PO1 Peniano got hold of his hand. Once caught, PO1 Peniano frisked Picardal and recovered a caliber .38 revolver from his waist — a rusty pistol with a handle made of wood containing five live ammunitions. Picardal was brought to the police station after PO1 Cristobal apprised him of his constitutional rights. At the station, PO1 Peniano referred Picardal to the officers in charge for medical examination, and the recovered items were surrendered to P/Chief Insp. William Santos for safekeeping. The following morning, the items were retrieved by PO1 Peniano and given to the assigned investigator, PO3 Anthony Navarro, for proper marking. PO1 Peniano had the confiscated firearm checked with the Firearm and Explosive Division (FED) of the PNP, which discovered that it was a loose firearm; the FED issued a certification stating that Picardal was not a licensed or registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber.

The defense rested on the lone testimony of Picardal, who denied the charges. He testified that on March 28, 2014, he was buying viand in the wet market of Baseco Compound, Tondo, Manila, when he noticed three armed police officers in uniform within the vicinity. Two of the three officers called him because of his allegedly urinating at the side of the market. Upon denying the accusation, the police officers got mad, frisked him, took his cellphone, and brought him to the police precinct. He went voluntarily with the police officers to the precinct and was detained there overnight. Thereafter, he was brought for inquest the following day. He was surprised when he was charged for urinating and illegal possession of firearms, and he denied that the confiscated items were seized from him. He asked the police officers to take his fingerprint to prove that the subject firearm did not belong to him, but the police officers refused. The case for urinating in public filed against him was dismissed by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila, Branch 26.

The RTC found that the prosecution had proved all the elements of the crime charged — the existence of the subject firearm and the fact that the accused, who owned or possessed it, did not have the license or permit to possess the same — and held that Picardal's defense of denial was self-serving and inherently weak. The CA affirmed, relying on the testimonies of the apprehending officers and the certification that Picardal was not a licensed or registered firearm holder of any kind of caliber.

• Legality of the Search and Conviction: Whether the RTC and the CA erred in convicting Picardal, in light of the fact that the firearm subject of the case was seized from him after he was frisked by the police officers for allegedly urinating in a public place, and that the case for urinating in a public place was subsequently dismissed.

• Legality of the Search and Conviction: Yes, the RTC and the CA erred. The firearm was discovered through an illegal search because there was no lawful arrest to justify a search incidental to arrest — the alleged violation of MMDA Regulation No. 96-009 is punishable by fine only, so no warrantless arrest could be made — and the firearm is inadmissible under Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, leaving no evidence to sustain the conviction.

• Legality of the Search and Conviction: Although the factual findings of the CA affirming the trial court are generally final and conclusive on the Court, the ninth exception applies: the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. The CA overlooked that (1) the firearm was seized from Picardal after he was frisked by the police officers for allegedly urinating in a public place, and (2) the case for "urinating in a public place" filed against Picardal was subsequently dismissed by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. The act supposedly committed — urinating in a public place — is punished only by Section 2(a) of MMDA Regulation No. 96-009, which provides that it is unlawful to urinate in public places. The regulation, however, provides that the penalty for a violation is only a fine of five hundred pesos (PhP500.00) or community service of one (1) day; it does not provide that the violator may be imprisoned, precisely because it is merely a regulation issued by the MMDA and not a law or an ordinance. Therefore, even if it were true that Picardal urinated in a public place, the police officers still conducted an illegal search when they frisked him for allegedly violating the regulation. It was not a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as there was no or there could not have been any lawful arrest to speak of. The Court applied the principle in Luz vs. People, where a man flagged down for a traffic violation was not, ipso facto and solely for that reason, arrested; because the violation was penalized by a fine only, no warrant of arrest need be issued, and as a corollary, neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense. The same principle applies here, as Picardal's violation, if at all committed, was only punishable by fine. As Sindac vs. People instructs, Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which the search and seizure becomes unreasonable; Section 3(2), Article III provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding, being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. One of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search incidental to a lawful arrest, but the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process cannot be reversed. Because the firearm was discovered through an illegal search, it cannot be used in any prosecution against Picardal, and as there is no longer any evidence against him, he must perforce be acquitted.

• Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest — A recognized exception to the constitutional warrant requirement, this doctrine permits a warrantless search only where a lawful arrest has first been effected. The law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made; the process cannot be reversed. In this case, no lawful arrest could have preceded the frisk because the alleged offense — urinating in a public place under MMDA Regulation No. 96-009 — is punishable by fine only, and a warrantless arrest cannot be made for an offense penalized by fine alone. The frisk was therefore an illegal search.
• Exclusionary Rule / Fruit of the Poisonous Tree — Under Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. Evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of an unreasonable search is deemed tainted and excluded. Because the caliber .38 revolver was seized through an illegal search, it could not be used in any prosecution against Picardal, and with no other evidence remaining, acquittal necessarily followed.
• Finality of the CA's Factual Findings and Its Exceptions — The factual findings of the CA, affirming those of the trial court, are generally final and conclusive on the Court. This rule admits of exceptions, including the ninth: where the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. The Court applied this exception because the CA overlooked that the firearm was seized after a frisk for the alleged public-urination violation and that the public-urination case had been dismissed by the MTC.
• Nature of MMDA Regulations — An MMDA regulation is, as its name implies, a mere regulation and not a law or an ordinance. Consequently, the penalty it prescribes for a violation of its provisions — here, a fine of PhP500.00 or community service of one day — cannot include imprisonment, and a violation thereof cannot support a warrantless arrest.

• "Stated differently, the MMDA Regulation is, as its name implies, a mere regulation, and not a law or an ordinance. Therefore, even if it were true that the accused-appellant did urinate in a public place, the police officers involved in this case still conducted an illegal search when they frisked Picardal for allegedly violating the regulation. It was not a search incidental to a lawful arrest as there was no or there could not have been any lawful arrest to speak of." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: because the alleged offense is penalized only by a fine under a mere regulation, no lawful arrest could justify the frisk, rendering the search illegal.
• "One of the recognized exceptions to the need for a warrant before a search may be affected is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process cannot be reversed." — This passage, quoted from Sindac vs. People, articulates the controlling rule that a lawful arrest must precede a search incidental to arrest.
• "Thus, as the firearm was discovered through an illegal search, the same cannot be used in any prosecution against him as mandated by Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution. As there is no longer any evidence against Picardal in this case, he must perforce be acquitted." — This passage applies the exclusionary rule and explains why the illegal search compelled acquittal.
• "It may be stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense." — Quoted from Luz vs. People, this passage supplies the corollary that an offense punishable by fine only cannot support a warrantless arrest.

• Luz vs. People, 683 Phil. 399 (2012) — Controlling precedent applied by the Court. A man flagged down for a traffic violation was not, ipso facto and solely for that reason, arrested; because the violation was penalized by a fine only, no warrant of arrest need be issued, and as a corollary, neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense. The Court held the same principle applied to Picardal.
• Sindac vs. People, 794 Phil. 421 (2016) — Precedent relied upon for the rule that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon probable cause, absent which it becomes unreasonable; that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches is inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree; and that a search incidental to a lawful arrest requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made.
• Cereno vs. Court of Appeals, 695 Phil. 820 (2012) — Cited for the rule that the factual findings of the CA, affirming those of the trial court, are generally final and conclusive on the Court, subject to enumerated exceptions, including the ninth exception applied in this case.

• Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause; absent such a warrant, the search and seizure becomes unreasonable. Applied to hold the frisk of Picardal illegal.
• Section 3(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. Applied to exclude the caliber .38 revolver and compel acquittal.
• Section 2(a), MMDA Regulation No. 96-009 — Prohibits urinating in public places and imposes a penalty of a fine of five hundred pesos (PhP500.00) or community service of one (1) day. The Court held that because the regulation is a mere regulation and not a law or ordinance, and the penalty is a fine only, no warrantless arrest could be made for its violation.
• Section 28(a) in relation to Section 28(e-1), Republic Act No. 10591 — The provision under which the RTC convicted Picardal of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms and imposed the indeterminate sentence. The conviction was reversed on appeal.

Carpio (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.