Title
Antonio Abiang y Cabonce vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 265117
Decision Date
Nov 13, 2023
Petitioner acquitted as search warrant lacked probable cause; evidence from invalid search deemed inadmissible, overturning conviction for illegal firearm possession.
illegal possession
search warrant
probable cause

Case Summary (G.R. No. 265117)

Factual Background

The prosecution alleged that Executive Judge Frazierwin V. Viterbo issued Search Warrant No. 033-17-FVV dated May 22, 2019 authorizing the search of petitioner’s house in Brgy. Cabaducan East, Nampicuan, Nueva Ecija for violations of Republic Act No. 10591. An Initial Firearms Holder Verification Report dated May 21, 2019 from the Firearms and Explosives Office stated that petitioner was not a licensed firearm holder. A police team implemented the search on May 31, 2019 at about 4:20 a.m.; barangay officials Arceo Papilla and Edgar Butay were present as witnesses. During the search Police Corporal Noel D. Pader allegedly found, inside a black basin in the bedroom, a sling bag containing a .38 caliber revolver loaded with six live ammunition, one live ammunition (reload), and four fired cartridge cases; petitioner was arrested, the items were marked and inventoried, photographed, and turned over to the Nueva Ecija Police Crime Laboratory Office for safekeeping and ballistic examination.

Defense Account

Petitioner testified denying ownership and claimed a frame-up. He asserted that police forced entry after presenting a warrant, that he asked them to call the barangay captain, and that when the barangay captain arrived the police were already inside and photographing the alleged evidence. Petitioner maintained that the firearm and ammunitions were planted and suggested a possible malicious motive by others. Barangay Captain Papilla testified that he did not witness the seizure because the police were already taking pictures when he arrived.

Trial Court Proceedings and Conviction

Petitioner pleaded not guilty and was tried. By Judgment dated June 1, 2020, the Regional Trial Court convicted Antonio Abiang y Cabonce of illegal possession of firearm under Republic Act No. 10591 and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty stated in the decision; the court found the elements of the offense established by the seizure of the .38 caliber revolver with live ammunitions and by the Firearms and Explosives Office Certification dated August 20, 2019 showing petitioner was not a licensed firearm holder. The trial court discredited petitioner’s defenses of denial and frame-up and ordered disposition of the firearm and ammunitions in accordance with law.

Court of Appeals Decision

By Decision dated October 29, 2021, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the RTC judgment. The appellate court sustained the RTC’s jurisdiction, noting that illegal possession under Section 28 of Republic Act No. 10591 carries a penalty exceeding six months and falls within RTC jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals held that the Search Warrant was issued on probable cause, observing the May 21, 2019 certification from the Firearms and Explosives Office and Judge Viterbo’s examination of the complainant and witnesses; it further noted petitioner’s failure to file a motion to quash or motion to suppress in a timely manner. The appellate court also relied upon the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and affirmed the police officers’ credibility, finding petitioner’s defenses unavailing. A motion for reconsideration was denied by resolution dated January 5, 2023.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

In the present petition under Rule 45, Antonio Abiang y Cabonce renewed his challenge of the conviction and urged that the Court of Appeals dispositions be reversed and that he be acquitted. He principally argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the Information was issued without probable cause; that he did not waive his right to contest the Search Warrant; and that the Search Warrant was invalid for want of probable cause rendering the seized items inadmissible. The Office of the Solicitor General responded that petitioner waived objections by failing to file a motion to quash before pleading, that the RTC had jurisdiction, that the trial court’s finding of probable cause enjoyed the presumption of regularity, and that alleged irregularities in implementation were baseless.

Standard of Review and Exception

The Court reiterated that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is ordinarily limited to questions of law and generally does not reexamine factual findings. The Court acknowledged, however, established exceptions when a judgment rests on a misapprehension of facts or when factual findings are conclusions lacking citation of specific evidence; the Court found such an exception present in this case because the validity of the Search Warrant implicated constitutional safeguards and involved an absence of adequate record on which probable cause could be said to have been determined.

Constitutional Requirement for Search Warrants and Evidentiary Rule

The Court cited Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution, and reiterated that searches and seizures shall be pursuant to a valid warrant issued upon probable cause determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce, and that the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized. The Court recalled that any evidence obtained in violation of these constitutional requirements shall be inadmissible for any purpose.

Analysis of the Search Warrant’s Validity

The Court examined the record and found that apart from a lone statement in the Search Warrant and an order purporting to record that the issuing judge personally examined the applicant and witnesses, there was no depositions, no stenographic transcript, no affidavits included in the records, and no testimony during trial referring to the application for the Search Warrant. The Court held that the Initial Firearms Holder Verification Report alone, which certified nonlicensure, was insufficient to establish probable cause of actual possession. Relying on precedent including Ogayon v. People and the principles derived from People v. Tee, the Court explained that, while the absence of depositions does not automatically invalidate a warrant, the records must contain particular facts and circumstances that the judge considered in independently evaluating probable cause. Finding the records devoid of such particulars, the Court concluded that the Search Warrant was void for violation of Article III, Section 2.

Rejection of Presumption of Regularity and Prosecutorial Response

The Court observed that the prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General, did not supply any explanation that would supply the missing factual predicates for the judge’s finding of probable cause. The Court held that invoking the presumption of regularity in the issuing judge’s performance could not cure the absence of any record of the probing examination required by the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the constitutional guarantee demands an adequate factual basis for probable cause and that mere formal statements are insufficient.

Waiver Rule and Its Inapplicability in This Case

The Court addressed the procedural rule that objections to the legality of search warrants and the admissibility of evidence must be raised during trial through a motion to quash or motion to suppress, citing Rule 126, Section 14 and cases such as Malaloan v. Court of Appeals. The Court, however, declined to treat petitioner’s failure to timely object as a waiver, reiterating the doctrine that courts should indulge every reaso

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms