PEOPLE V. SOLAYAO G.R. No. 119220. September 20, 1996
FACTS:
l SPO3 Nio and his team of CAFGU went to Brgy. Caulangohan, Caibiran, Biliran to conduct an investigation regarding reports on the presence of armed men roaming around barangays of Caibiran.
l Upon arriving in Brgy. Onion, the agents became suspicious to the group of Solayao because the accused-appellant himself is drunk and wearing a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit. What’s more suspicious is when they noticed the team of SPO3 Nio, the group fled leaving behind Solayao, herein accused-appellant.
l According to Solayao, he’s not aware that he is carrying a “latong” (49-inch firearm) wrapped in dried coconut leaves. He thought that it’s only a torch which Hermogenes Cenining gave to him and that he is not aware that there’s a concealed weapon inside. He further claimed that this was the third torch handed to him after the others had been used up.
l Accused-appellant Nilo Solayao was charged before the RTC of Biliran, with the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition defined and penalized under PD No. 1866.
l The lower court found that accused-appellant did not contest the fact that SPO3 Nino confiscated the firearm from him and that he had no permit or license to possess the same. It hardly found credible accused-appellant's submission that he was in possession of the firearm only by accident and that upon reaching Barangay Onion, he followed four persons, namely, Hermogenes Cenining, Antonio Sevillano, Willie Regir and Jovenito Jaro when he earlier claimed that he did not know his companions.
ISSUE:
WON the trial court erred in admitting the subject firearm in evidence as it was the product of an unlawful warrantless search.
HELD:
NO. There was no error on the part of the trial court when it admitted the homemade firearm as evidence nor violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The SC ruled that the search and seizure conducted in this case be likened to the Posadas case where the suspicious conduct of Posadas himself can be likened to a "stop and frisk" situation. There was a probable cause to conduct a search even before an arrest could be made.
In the present case, after SPO3 Nino told accused-appellant not to run away, the former identified himself as a government agent.[16] The peace officers did not know that he had committed, or was actually committing, the offense of illegal possession of firearm. Tasked with verifying the report that there were armed men roaming around in the barangays surrounding Caibiran, their attention was understandably drawn to the group that had aroused their suspicion. They could not have known that the object wrapped in coconut leaves which accused-appellant was carrying hid a firearm.
As with Posadas, the case at bar constitutes an instance where a search and seizure may be effected without first making an arrest. There was justifiable cause to "stop and frisk" accused-appellant when his companions fled upon seeing the government agents. Under the circumstances, the government agents could not possibly have procured a search warrant first.
However, the prosecution failed to produce evidence that the accused-appellant has no license to carry the firearm by merely relying on the lone witness’ (SPO3 Nio) testimony that accused-appellant admitted to them during the time he was apprehended that he has no license to carry such weapon.
The prosecution should have presented a certification from the Firearms and Explosives Unit of the Philippine National Police that accused-appellant was not a licensee of a firearm of any kind or caliber would have sufficed for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of the crime of illegal possession of firearm.
Hence, Accused-appellant Nilo Solayao was ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.