Case Digest (G.R. No. 93828)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Santiago Evaristo and Noli Carillo, G.R. No. 93828, December 11, 1992, the Supreme Court First Division, Padilla, J., writing for the Court. The appeal arose from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires, Cavite (Criminal Case No. NC-267, presided by Hon. Enrique M. Almario), which convicted the accused-appellants of illegal possession of firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866 and sentenced them to life imprisonment.The information charged that on or about 23 August 1988 in Mendez, Cavite, the appellants, private persons, unlawfully manufactured, repaired, and possessed several firearms, ammunition and tools without any permit, listing specific items found. The appellants pleaded not guilty and went to trial. The prosecution presented Sgt. Eladio Romeroso and C1C Edgardo Vallarta (Philippine Constabulary) who testified that while on patrol they heard gunshots, encountered one Barequiel Rosillo firing into the air, pursued him to Evaristo’s house, and there found the appellants slightly inebriated. Vallarta observed a bulge at Carillo’s waist which, upon frisking, yielded a .38 revolver; Romeroso, with Evaristo’s permission to search the house for Rosillo, discovered multiple firearms and paraphernalia in plain view.
The appellants denied knowledge or ownership of the seized items and accused the police of planting evidence and subjecting them to indignities. The trial court, after evaluating testimony and evidence, rendered judgment on 18 April 1990 finding both guilty under PD 1866. The appellants raised three principal errors on appeal to the Supreme Court: (1) Exhibits B–F were illegally seized and should have been excluded; (2) the seized items were not firearms within PD 1866 because they were nonfunctional; and (3) the prosecution witnesses ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the seizure of the firearms and paraphernalia discovered in Evaristo’s house lawful and admissible in evidence?
- Was the seizure of the .38 revolver from Carillo lawful as incidental to a warrantless arrest under Rule 113, Sec. 5?
- Does P.D. No. 1866, Sec. 1 reach nonfunctional firearms or parts and paraphernalia?
- Should contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)