Fajardo vs. People

Facts:

Petitioner Elenita F. Fajardo and co‑accused Zaldy Valerio were charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5, Kalibo, Aklan, with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, after police recovered two .45‑caliber lower receivers and, during a later search pursuant to a search warrant, magazines and ammunition inside petitioner’s house. The information alleged possession of the receivers, short magazines, and live ammunition; both pleaded not guilty. At pretrial the parties stipulated several facts, including that the search warrant existed, the warrant was served at petitioner’s house on the morning of August 28, 2002, both accused were not licensed firearm holders, and Valerio had been at petitioner’s house the evening before.

The factual background as found by the RTC and the Court of Appeals (CA) was that, on the evening of August 27, 2002, police responded to complaints of armed men firing at petitioner’s residence; they observed people scatter and saw Valerio holding and firing pistols and petitioner allegedly tucking a .45 pistol into her waistband before both entered and locked the house. Police cordoned the premises. At about 2:00 a.m. and again at 4:00 a.m. SPO2 Clemencio Nava saw Valerio emerge on the roof and throw objects that landed near petitioner’s wall and inside a neighbor’s compound; Nava and other witnesses recovered two lower receivers which were turned over to an investigator who used them in obtaining a search warrant. The warrant was executed at 9:30 a.m.; police then seized two short M16 magazines, thirty‑five M16 live rounds (5.56 cal.), and fourteen .45 live rounds. Petitioner denied ownership, refused to sign the inventory, and claimed the items belonged to her brother in the military.

The RTC denied motions to quash the warrant and a demurrer to evidence (orders which the RTC held became final), found both accused guilty of illegal possession under paragraph 2 of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 as amended, and sentenced them to six years and one day to twelve years of prision mayor and to pay P30,000 each. Petitioner alone moved for reconsideration and appealed to the CA.

The CA affirmed the RTC’s factual findings but held that the application for the search warrant was defective because SPO1 Nathaniel Tan lacked personal knowledge and failed to attach a PNP Firearms and Explosives Office certification; therefore the firearms and ammunition seized inside petitioner’s house were inadmissible. The CA nevertheless admitted the two receivers seized outside the house under the plain view doctrine and convicted both accused of illegal possession of a part of a firearm under paragraph 1, Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 as amended, sentencing them to the indeterminate penalty of three years, six months and twenty‑one days to five years, four months and twenty days of prision correccional and a P20,000 fine. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Was the information duplicitous and, if so, did the defendants waive any objection by failing to raise it at arraignment?
• Were the two .45‑caliber lower receivers admissible under the plain view doctrine despite the absence of a valid warrant for the later search of the house?
• Was petitioner Elenita F. Fajardo proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal pos...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)