G.R. No. 201501 - Republic vs. N. Dela Merced and Sons, Inc.

On December 8, 2015 at around 9:30–10:00 p.m., Police Officers Caparas and Morta were patrolling in Barangay Lennec, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, when they saw petitioner Bobby Carbonel y Dreza rushing toward a group of children and drawing something from his waist.
The officers approached, saw a .38-caliber revolver (Smith & Wesson, no serial number) tucked at his right waist, asked for a license or permit to carry, and, upon learning he had none, arrested him and confiscated the weapon, five live ammunitions, and a black holster.

At the station, PO1 Caparas apprised petitioner of his rights, marked the revolver “BDC” and the ammunitions “BDC-1” to “BDC-5,” and prepared the Pinagsamahang Sinumpaang Salaysay, inventory receipt, ballistic exam request, and request for FEO-PNP verification.
Due to repair of the police car, the items were transmitted to the crime lab 16 days later; on January 11, 2017, FEO-PNP certified that petitioner was not a licensed or registered firearms holder of any caliber.

Petitioner pleaded not guilty, denied knowledge or ownership of the gun, and claimed he was merely watching a bikini contest when police blocked him, searched his bag (finding a damaged DVD), frisked him (seizing his cellphone), and forcibly brought him to the station.
He contended the officers fabricated testimony and that the seizure fell outside any lawful exception to the warrant requirement.

RTC Ruling (June 25, 2018): Found petitioner guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Sec. 28(a) in relation to Sec. 28(e)(1) of RA 10591; imposed an indeterminate sentence of 6 years 1 day to 8 years 8 months 1 day prision mayor.
CA Decision (Dec. 13, 2019): Affirmed RTC but modified the penalty to 9 years to 11 years prision mayor, holding the warrantless arrest valid on reasonable suspicion and the incidental search valid under the plain-view doctrine; denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution (July 27, 2020).
Petition for Review (Rule 45) filed before the Supreme Court, raising issues on the validity of the warrantless arrest, search, evidentiary sufficiency, and penalty.

Whether petitioner’s act of rushing toward children while drawing something from his waist constituted a crime in flagrante delicto or at least reasonable ground for arrest.
Whether any defect in the arrest was waived by petitioner’s failure to timely object before arraignment and participation in trial.

Whether the search and seizure of the revolver and ammunition fall under the plain-view doctrine.
Whether the items seized are admissible evidence or poisonously tainted by an illegal search.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition and their recovery from petitioner.
Whether the FEO-PNP certification and PO1 Caparas’s testimony suffice to establish petitioner’s lack of license and possession.

Whether Sec. 28(a) in relation to Sec. 28(e)(1) prescribes prision mayor in its maximum period.
Whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law was correctly applied to set the minimum and maximum terms.