Case Digest (G.R. No. 257450)
Facts:
Ian Agravante y De Oca v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 257450, July 11, 2022, the Supreme Court Third Division, Dimaampao, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ian Agravante y De Oca was charged by Information with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under Section 1, Paragraph 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (PD No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294), for allegedly being found in possession of an improvised firearm, assorted live ammunition and a magazine and ammunitions of a P99 Walther pistol on 14 July 2012 in Bacolod City.
The prosecution's narrative: at about 3:10 a.m. on 14 July 2012, the PNP-MPG logged a report by Engineer Vicente Genova that items were stolen from his parked vehicle. Police investigators interviewed a witness, Romeo Tabigne, who identified petitioner as one of the perpetrators and led officers later that day to a house in Purok Kagaykay, Barangay 2, Bacolod City. Around 2:00 p.m., officers, including PO1 Edward M. Teodorico, peered through bamboo slats, saw petitioner sleeping, entered the house, and discovered two bags beside him — one resembling the Nike bag reported stolen. Opening the bags, officers allegedly found an improvised gun with a live round, two .357 rounds, a P99 magazine and 27 pieces of .40 caliber ammunition; a live shotgun round was recovered from petitioner's pocket. PO1 Teodorico marked certain seized items; other items were returned to Genova. Petitioner was arrested for lacking any permit to possess the items.
Petitioner denied the charges, claiming he had been asleep after being left alone in the house, was awakened and beaten by three intruders (one later identified as PO1 Teodorico), and was taken to the police station where he was again allegedly mauled. He admitted he did not see a doctor nor file any complaint against the officers.
On 28 September 2017, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, Bacolod City, Presiding Judge Ana Celeste P. Bernad, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition and sentenced him to an indeterminate term and ordered a fine. The RTC credited the testimony of PO1 Teodorico and found the elements of the offense proven.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated 8 September 2020 (CA‑G.R. CEB‑CR No. 03144, penned by Associate Justice Emily R. Alino‑Geluz, with Justices Ingles and Bordios concurring), the CA affirmed the RTC in toto, ruling petitioner’s warrantless arrest lawful under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and upholding the search under Section 13, Rule 126; the CA also held that petitioner waived any challenge to his arrest by failing to move to quash before arraignment. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated 27 May 2021 (penned by Associate Justice Gabrie...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s warrantless arrest lawful and were the firearms and ammunitions seized admissible in evidence?
- If the seized items are inadmissible, was the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to sustain petitioner’s conviction beyond r...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)