Title
Al-Ghoul vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 126859
Decision Date
Sep 4, 2001
Search warrants issued for Apartment No. 2 led to seizure of firearms, explosives; search at Apartment No. 8 deemed illegal. Petitioners entitled to bail due to reduced penalties under RA 8294.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 105436)

Facts:

  • Issuance and Execution of Search Warrants
    • On March 31, 1995, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalookan City, Branch 125, issued Search Warrant No. 54-95 and No. 55-95 authorizing the search of Apartment No. 2, 154 Obiniana Compound, Deparo Road, Kalookan City, for specified firearms, ammunition, explosives, and related articles.
    • On April 1, 1995, police officers executed the warrants:
      • They improperly searched Apartment No. 8 (not covered by the warrants) and seized one .45-caliber pistol.
      • They searched Apartment No. 2 in the presence of its occupants (the petitioners) and seized numerous items, including:
        • Two M-16 rifles with magazines and live ammunition;
        • One .45-caliber pistol with live ammunition;
        • One .22-caliber handgun with live ammunition;
        • Boxes of ammunition (.25 caliber, .22 caliber);
        • Demolition charge, fragmentation grenades, TNT, detonating cords, blasting caps, dynamite sticks, suspected explosives and gunpowder, timer, scale, batteries, and other related materials.
  • Criminal Proceedings and Bail
    • The petitioners were charged under Presidential Decree No. 1866 for illegal possession of firearms, ammunition, and explosives in Criminal Cases Nos. C-48666 and C-48667 before RTC Branch 123, Kalookan City.
    • They filed a motion for bail on May 24, 1995; the RTC held this in abeyance pending evaluation of the strength of the prosecution’s evidence.
    • On February 19, 1996, the RTC denied bail, citing strong evidence of guilt and the penalties of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua under PD 1866 (Rule 114, Sec. 7, Rules of Criminal Procedure).
  • Appellate and Supreme Court Proceedings
    • Petitioners sought relief via special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC’s rulings.
    • They elevated the case to the Supreme Court under Rule 65, assailing (a) admissibility of evidence from the search and (b) their right to bail.
    • On November 24, 1998, the Supreme Court partially lifted its TRO, ruling that amendments under RA 8294 reduced the penalties under PD 1866 and entitled petitioners to bail as a right prior to conviction.

Issues:

  • Are the items seized pursuant to Search Warrants Nos. 54-95 and 55-95 admissible in evidence?
  • Do the petitioners have the right to bail prior to conviction under their charges?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.