Title
Supreme Court
Villamor y Tayson vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 200396
Decision Date
Mar 22, 2017
Petitioners charged under RA 9287 for illegal numbers game; warrantless arrest deemed unconstitutional; evidence inadmissible; acquitted by SC.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 200396)
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)

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.