Title
Supreme Court
Picardal y Baluyot vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 235749
Decision Date
Jun 19, 2019
Picardal acquitted of illegal firearm possession after SC ruled evidence inadmissible due to illegal search during arrest for public urination.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 181111)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Procedural History
    • Accused-appellant Ramon Picardal y Baluyot (Picardal) was charged by Information dated March 28, 2014 in RTC Manila, Branch 21, with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms under Sections 28(a) and 28(e-1) of Republic Act No. 10591.
    • Picardal pleaded not guilty; pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued.
  • Prosecution’s Version
    • On March 27, 2014 at around 8:00 p.m., PO1 Mark Anthony Peniano, PO1 William Cristobal, and PO1 Rodrigo Co, on beat patrol in Baseco PNP Compound (Ermita, Manila), saw Picardal allegedly urinating in public. They approached him, cited the prohibition, and invited him to the precinct.
    • Picardal tried to flee; Peniano caught and frisked him, recovering a rusty .38 revolver with wooden handle loaded with five live rounds from his waist. Picardal was read his rights, brought to the station, and the firearm was marked by PO3 Anthony Navarro and examined by the PNP Firearms and Explosives Division (FED), which certified it as a loose (unregistered) firearm and that Picardal held no license.
  • Defense’s Version
    • Picardal testified he was buying viand at the wet market when three uniformed police wrongly accused him of public urination, frisked him, took his cellphone, and brought him to the precinct. He voluntarily submitted and was detained overnight.
    • He denied ownership of the firearm, requested fingerprint verification (refused), and noted that the public-urination case was dismissed by MTC Manila, Branch 26.
  • Rulings Below
    • RTC Decision dated September 24, 2015 found Picardal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of prision mayor (8 years and 1 day to 10 years, 8 months, and 1 day).
    • CA Decision dated May 31, 2017 and Resolution dated October 27, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR No. 38123 affirmed the RTC. Picardal filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Did the RTC and CA err in convicting Picardal of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms?
  • Was the frisk and seizure lawful as a search incidental to a lawful arrest for public urination, or was it unlawful due to absence of a valid arrest?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.