Case Digest (G.R. No. 257910)
Facts:
Alfonso Patotoy y Centeno @ "Nonoy," Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent, G.R. No. 257910, March 04, 2025, the Supreme Court En Banc, Lopez, J., writing for the Court. Petotoy was criminally charged with illegal possession of a .38-caliber firearm and five live ammunition under Republic Act No. 10591, Section 28(a) in relation to Section 28(e)(1).On April 9, 2018, Police Officers III Jayson Tan and I Elizardo Reputas, while on anti-criminality patrol along Hermosa Street, Tondo, Manila, saw Patotoy drinking from a 500-ml Red Horse beer bottle in public. The officers informed him of an alleged violation of Manila City Ordinance No. 5555, seized the bottle, and—after PO1 Reputas frisked Patotoy—recovered a .38 caliber pistol with five live rounds. Patotoy was informed of his rights, brought for a medical/ breath test (which was positive for alcohol), and turned over with the seized items to the investigator-on-duty, PO3 Romeo Palma, Jr., who prepared the necessary investigation papers and forwarded the case for inquest. The firearm was marked, photographed, submitted for ballistic examination (Firearms Identification Report No. FAIS-150-2018), and the PNP-FEO later issued a certification that Patotoy was not a licensed firearms holder.
At the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Patotoy pleaded not guilty and testified that the firearm was planted. The prosecution presented PO3 Tan, PO1 Reputas, PO3 Palma (testimony dispensed by stipulation), and PCINSP Cristina Macagba (testimony dispensed by stipulation). The RTC found the arrest and search lawful, admitted the seized firearm and ammunition, and convicted Patotoy of violation of Section 28(a) in relation to Section 28(e)(1) of RA 10591, sentencing him to an indeterminate term (minimum 8 years 8 months; maximum 10 years 8 months and 1 day).
Patotoy appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 43233. The CA, in a Decision dated October 30, 2020, affirmed the RTC, holding the arrest and search lawful and the evidence admissible; a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by CA Resolution dated October 26, 2021. Patotoy then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA decision.
In the Supreme Court proceedings, the Office of the Solicitor General argued that Patotoy had waived objection to the legality of his warrantless arrest by not raising it before arraignment. The Court required and received a certified copy of Manila City Ordinance No. 5555 to verify the penal consequences of the ordinance. The Court also considered a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner waive his right to challenge the legality of the warrantless arrest by not raising it before arraignment?
- Was the warrantless arrest and the search incidental thereto lawful such that the firearm and ammunition were admissible?
- Do the alleged failures to secure the PNP-FEO negative certification before arraignment (per DOJ Circular No. 067) and asserted lapses in chain of custody invalidate ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)