Case Digest (G.R. No. 200396) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Martin Villamor y Tayson and Victor Bonaobra y Gianan v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 200396, March 22, 2017), petitioners Martin Villamor and Victor Bonaobra were charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43 of Virac, Catanduanes, with violations of Presidential Decree No. 1602 as amended by Republic Act No. 9287 (“An Act Increasing the Penalties for Illegal Numbers Games”). On June 17, 2005 at around 9:00 a.m., Police Superintendent Francisco Peñaflor, SPO4 Severino Malasa, Jr., PO1 David Saraspi and a civilian asset, acting on an unnamed informant’s tip, entered Bonaobra’s private compound in Barangay Francia, Virac, without a search or arrest warrant. The officers claimed they saw the petitioners counting bets (“revisar”) on slips of paper (“papelitos”) and handling a calculator, cellphone, bet slips and cash amounting to ₱1,500.00. Villamor was charged as a collector under Section 3(c) of RA 9287; Bonaobra as a coordinator, controller or supervisor under S Case Digest (G.R. No. 200396) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Offense Charged
- Petitioners Martin Villamor y Tayson and Victor Bonaobra y Gianan were charged with violations of RA 9287 (“An Act Increasing the Penalties for Illegal Numbers Games”) as amended by PD 1602.
- Villamor was accused under Section 3(c) as a collector or agent of the illegal numbers game “lotteng.” Bonaobra was charged under Section 3(d) as coordinator, controller, or supervisor.
- Factual and Procedural Background
- Informant’s Tip and Police Operation
- On June 17, 2005, Police Superintendent Peñaflor received an unnamed informant’s tip of ongoing “lotteng” at Bonaobra’s residence in Virac, Catanduanes.
- A police team parked outside a bamboo-fenced compound (~15–20 m away), observed petitioners allegedly counting bets (“revisar”) and money, then entered without a warrant, introduced themselves as officers, and seized cash (₱1,500), “papelitos,” a calculator, pen, and cellphone. Petitioners were brought to camp for investigation.
- Petitioners’ Version
- Villamor testified he visited Bonaobra’s home at ~8:30 a.m. to repay a personal debt.
- Bonaobra claimed he was answering his cellphone when officers forcibly entered, kicked the gate, seized his phone, shouted “Caught in the act!,” and arrested both without showing a warrant.
- Trial Court Decision (RTC, Oct. 25, 2006)
- Found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt, holding they were caught in flagrante delicto with gambling paraphernalia.
- Sentenced Villamor to 8 years + 1 day to 9 years; Bonaobra to 10 years + 1 day to 11 years; confiscated seized items in favor of the State.
- Court of Appeals Decision (CA, June 13, 2011)
- Affirmed the RTC, ruling that a manager’s conviction as a supervisor did not violate due process.
- Credited police testimony over petitioners’ denials.
Issues:
- Whether the warrantless entry, search, and arrest violated petitioners’ constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures (Art. III, Sec. 2, 3(2), 1987 Constitution).
- Whether the alleged in flagrante delicto arrest and search were valid under Rule 113, Sec. 5, of the Rules of Court.
- Whether evidence seized without a warrant is admissible and sufficient to sustain convictions under RA 9287.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)