Case Digest (G.R. No. 162215) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Sammy Malacat y Mandar v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, petitioner Sammy Malacat was charged on August 30, 1990 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 5 (Criminal Case No. 90-86748), with violating Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for keeping and possessing a live hand grenade without a permit. At arraignment on October 9, 1990, he pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial, the prosecution admitted lack of any search or arrest warrant. At trial, PO3 Rodolfo Yu testified that on August 27, 1990, he and other uniformed officers on foot patrol near Plaza Miranda observed two groups of Muslim-looking men acting suspiciously. When the officers approached one group, its members fled, and Yu caught petitioner and found a fragmentation grenade tucked in his front waistband. A companion was arrested with an unlicensed .38-caliber revolver. The grenade was later marked, turned over to commanding officers, and examined seven months later by a Bomb Case Digest (G.R. No. 162215) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Procedural History
- On August 30, 1990, an Information was filed in RTC Manila, Branch 5, charging petitioner Sammy Malacat y Mandar with illegal possession of a hand grenade, in violation of Section 3, P.D. No. 1866.
- At arraignment (October 9, 1990), petitioner pleaded not guilty. At pre-trial (March 11, 1991), parties admitted exhibits and the prosecution conceded lack of search-or-arrest warrant.
- Prosecution Evidence
- PO3 Rodolfo Yu testified that on August 27, 1990, at about 6:30 p.m., he and fellow uniformed officers on foot patrol near Plaza Miranda observed two groups of Muslim-looking men acting “suspiciously.” After a 30-minute surveillance they approached one group; petitioner fled but was caught, and Yu allegedly found a fragmentation grenade in petitioner’s front waistline.
- Sgt. Josefino Serapio testified that on August 28, 1990, he conducted an uncounseled inquest of petitioner and took his confession (Exh. E), then prepared the affidavit of arrest and booking sheet; he later turned the grenade over to the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit.
- PO Orlando Ramilo of the Bomb Disposal Unit certified on March 22, 1991 that the subject grenade was live and capable of exploding.
- Defense Evidence
- Petitioner claimed he was lawfully standing in Plaza Miranda on August 27, 1990, when policemen without warrant ordered all males aside, searched and arrested him, then detained and mauled him; he saw no grenade until trial.
- Lower Courts’ Decisions
- RTC (February 15, 1994): Held that the warrantless stop-and-frisk and seizure incidental to lawful arrest were valid; admitted the grenade and petitioner’s confession; convicted petitioner to 17 years, 4 months, 1 day to reclusion perpetua.
- CA (January 24, 1996): Affirmed RTC, finding probable cause in in flagrante delicto/hot pursuit; distinguished People v. Mengote; emphasized practical considerations amid bomb-threat intelligence.
Issues:
- Jurisdiction
- Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over petitioner’s appeal given the penalty’s maximum of reclusion perpetua.
- Validity of Arrest, Search and Seizure
- Whether the warrantless arrest was lawful under Rule 113, Section 5 (in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit).
- Whether the search was valid as stop-and-frisk or incident to lawful arrest.
- Whether the hand grenade was properly admitted in evidence.
- Applicability of People v. Mengote
- Whether the CA erred in holding that Mengote’s prohibition against arrests/searches for mere “suspicious” conduct did not apply.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)