Case Digest (G.R. No. 215305)
Facts:
Marcelo G. Saluday v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 215305, April 03, 2018, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, Acting C.J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Marcelo G. Saluday and respondent is the People of the Philippines.On 5 May 2009, Task Force Davao of the Philippine Army stopped Davao Metro Shuttle Bus No. 66 at a checkpoint near Tefasco Wharf in Ilang, Davao City. Staff Corporal (SCAA) Junbert M. Buco boarded the bus, required male passengers to disembark, and proceeded to inspect passenger baggage. He identified a small gray-black pack bag at the rear that felt unusually heavy. The bus conductor pointed to petitioner (seated at the back) as the owner; petitioner replied the bag contained a cellphone and then permitted SCAA Buco to open it. Inside were an improvised .30-caliber carbine (Serial No. 64702), one magazine with three live rounds, a cacao-type hand grenade, and a hunting knife. Petitioner could not produce a firearms license and was arrested and Mirandized.
Petitioner was brought for inquest; the Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause on 7 May 2009 and filed an Information on 8 May 2009 charging petitioner with illegal possession of a high-powered firearm, ammunition, and explosive under Presidential Decree No. 1866 (PD 1866). At trial petitioner pleaded not guilty.
At the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Davao City (Criminal Case No. 65,734-09), the prosecution presented SCAA Buco and NUP Daniel Tabura (Firearms and Explosives Division), who identified a certification that petitioner was not a licensed firearm holder. Petitioner testified in his defense, denying ownership of the bag and claiming his brother Roger (who later died) owned it; he admitted, however, that the conductor pointed to him, he said the bag contained a cellphone, and he consented to have it opened. The prosecution waived rebuttal and both parties filed memoranda.
On 15 September 2011 the trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of high-powered firearm, ammunition, and explosive under PD 1866 and sentenced him to imprisonment and fines. Petitioner appealed.
In CA-G.R. CR No. 01099, the Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated 26 June 2014, affirmed the conviction with modification of penalties (imposing an indeterminate term for firearm/ammunition and reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for the explosive) and deni...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Under Section I, Rule 45, may this Court re-evaluate the trial court’s factual findings on questions of possession and the legality of the search?
- Was the inspection/search of the bus and petitioner’s bag an unreasonable warrantless search that renders the seized items inadmissible under Sec. 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution?
- Were the elements of illegal possession (existence of the items, possession/ownership, and lack of license) established beyond re...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)