Title
Ta-ala y Constantino vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 254800
Decision Date
Jun 20, 2022
Police arrested Ta-ala without a warrant for illegal firearms possession, but inconsistencies in the officers' account rendered the arrest invalid. The Supreme Court dismissed charges, ruling evidence inadmissible due to illegal arrest and flawed inquest proceedings.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 191699)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Warrantless Arrest and Seizure
    • On August 6, 2016, SPO4 Yorpo and SPO1 Jambaro of CIDG-Negros Occidental arrested Bryan Ta-ala y Constantino (petitioner) and Wilford Palma y Zarceno without a warrant at an Atlas Shippers office in Bacolod City.
    • In their Affidavit of Arrest (executed August 8, 2016), the officers claimed they saw a Glock 26 9mm pistol (SN ELR043) tucked in petitioner’s waist and, simultaneously, found the same pistol plus assorted firearm accessories inside a package petitioner’s companion had retrieved.
  • Inquest Proceedings and Informations Filed
    • On August 8, 2016, a Letter-Complaint was filed in DOJ Inquest Docket XVI-INQ-16H-00110; ASP Vito Cruz conducted an inquest, issuing on August 22, 2016 a resolution finding probable cause to charge petitioner with two counts under Section 28, RA 10591 (illegal possession of firearm and accessories).
    • On September 13, 2016, ASP Vito Cruz issued another resolution finding probable cause for Section 33, RA 10591 (arms smuggling) and Sections 101(a)/3601, Tariff and Customs Code (smuggling). Four separate informations ensued before RTC-Branches 46, 50, 54, and 42 (the latter two later withdrawn).
  • Trial Court and Court of Appeals Dispositions
    • Petitioner filed motions to quash the informations, suppress evidence, consolidate cases, and post bail—all denied by RTC-Branches 46 and 54. He posted bail yet remained detained pending preliminary investigation.
    • He filed two certiorari petitions with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP 10697 and CA-G.R. SP 10873) challenging the denial of his motions; the CA consolidated and dismissed both petitions on May 9, 2019, and denied reconsideration on January 30, 2020.

Issues:

  • Whether petitioner’s warrantless arrest and the incidental search were lawful.
  • Whether the inquest and further proceedings complied with Article 125, RPC, and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  • Whether evidence seized during the arrest and search is admissible.
  • Consequences of any illegality on the pending criminal cases.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.