JUDGE ABELITA III v. DORIA
GR.no. 170672
Facts:
Judge Abelita III filed a complaint for Damages against
P/Supt. Doria and SPO3 Ramirez. Petitioner alleged that while he andhis
family are on their way home, these two officers requested them to proceed to
the Provincial PNP Headquarters at Camp BoniSerrano, Masbate, Masbate. He
was forcibly taken and was searched without warrant. A shotgun was found in his
possession and hewas arrested. Petitioner was charged with illegal possession
of firearms and frustrated murder. The trial court found that
petitionerwas at the scene of the shooting incident in Barangay Nursery. The
trial court ruled that the police officers who conducted the searchwere of the
belief, based on reasonable grounds, that petitioner was involved in the
incident and that the firearm used in the
commission of the offense was in his possession. The trial
court ruled that petitioner’s warrantless arrest and the warrantl
ess seizure ofthe firearms were valid and legal,
thus, rejecting petitioner’s claim for frame up.
Issue:
Whether the warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure
were illegal under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules onCriminal Procedure;
Ruling:
No.For the warrantless arrest under this Rule to be valid,
two requisites must concur: (1) the offender has just committed anoffense; and
(2) the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrestedhas committed it.Section 5, Rule
113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure does not require the arresting
officers to personally witness thecommission of the offense with their own
eyes. In this case, P/Supt. Doria received a report about the alleged shooting
incident. SPO3Ramirez investigated the report and learned from witnesses that
petitioner was involved in the incident. They were able to track downpetitioner,
but when invited to the police headquarters to shed light on the incident, petitioner
initially agreed then sped up his vehicle,prompting the police authorities to
give chase.
Petitioner’s act of trying to get away, coupled with the incident
report which they
investigated, is enough to
raise a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police authorities as to the
existence of probable cause.The seizure of the firearms was justified under the
plain view doctrine. The plain view doctrine applies when the
followingrequisites concur: (1) the law enforcement officer in search of the
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a positionfrom
which he can view a particular area; (2) the discovery of the evidence in plain
view is inadvertent; and (3) it is immediatelyapparent to the officer that the
item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to
seizure.The police authorities were in the area because that was where they
caught up with petitioner after the chase. They saw the firearmsinside the
vehicle when petitioner opened the door. Since a shooting incident just took
place and it was reported that petitioner was
involved in the incident, it was apparent to the police officers
that the firearms may be evidence of a crime, hence they were justified
inseizing the firearms.
Under
the 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 and
may be presented as evidence.
The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (1) the law enforcement
officer in search of the evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a
particular area; (2) the discovery
of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (3) it isimmediately
apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
In Abelita III vs. Doria, the Supreme Court stated that the
police officers were justified in seizing the firearms because the police
authorities were in the area because that was where they caught up with
petitioner after the chase. They saw the firearms inside the vehicle when petitioner
opened the door. Since a shooting incident just took place and it was reported
that petitioner was involved in the incident, it was apparent to the police
officers that the firearms may be evidence of a crime. Hence, they were
justified in seizing the firearms(ABELITA III vs. DORIA, G.R.
No. 170672, August 14, 2009, First Division, Carpio, J.).
Relative
thereto, it bears emphasis that the “plain view doctrine” may not be used to
launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures or to extend a general
exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant’s guilt. The
doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for
evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object. (VALEROSO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 164815, September 3,
2009, Third Divisio, Nachura, J.).
As
the Supreme Court enunciated in
People v. Cubcubin, Jr. (413 Phil 249 (2001), and and People v.
Leangsiri, 322 Phil. 226 (1996):
“What
the “plain view” cases have in common is that the police officer in each of
them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which[,] he
came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior
justification – whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search
incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present
unconnected with a search directed against the accused – and permits the
warrantless seizure. Of
course, the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it
is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the
“plain view” doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search
from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges”(People v. Cubcubin, Jr. (413 Phil 249 (2001), and and
People v. Leangsiri, 322 Phil. 226 (1996) cited in VALEROSO vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009, Third Division, Nachura, J.).
Thankyou po :)
TumugonBurahin