Title
Balicanta III y Cuarto vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 246081
Decision Date
Jun 26, 2023
Ignacio Balicanta III was acquitted of illegal firearm possession due to an invalid arrest, inadmissible evidence from an unlawful search, and compromised evidence integrity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 246081)

Facts of the Case

While on patrol, respondents flagged down petitioner for riding a motorcycle without a helmet. He produced an expired driver’s license, then displayed an identification card purporting him to be a police intelligence operative. Alarmed by inconsistencies, officers demanded that he open his belt bag, where they found a .45-caliber pistol (Serial No. M01130), one magazine, eight live .45 caliber rounds, and a folding knife. Petitioner presented a firearms license bearing another person’s name and mismatched serial number. He was arrested on the spot and the confiscated items were booked at the station.

Procedural History

Trial Court (RTC Branch 87, Quezon City) convicted petitioner for violation of RA 10591 § 28(a) and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of three years, one day to eight years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, increasing the penalty to eight years of prision mayor as minimum to nine years and four months as maximum. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether petitioner’s warrantless arrest was valid under the Constitution and Rules of Court.
  2. Whether the search of petitioner’s bag was a lawful search incidental to arrest or an invalid stop-and-frisk.
  3. Whether the integrity and chain of custody of the seized firearm and ammunition were properly preserved.

Ruling on Validity of Arrest and Search

The Supreme Court held that:
• No evidence was presented to prove that petitioner was validly arrested for an arrestable traffic offense. The Motorcycle Helmet Act and traffic code violations are penalized by fine, not by imprisonment, hence do not justify arrest.
• The alleged “preventive patrol operation” lacked documentary support as required by PNP operational procedures.
• The purported identification card did not establish petitioner’s usurpation of authority; it was not formally offered or proven at trial.
• The search was conducted without valid consent or a lawful arrest. Under the 1987 Constitution, warrantless searches incidental to arrest require flgrante delicto and real exigency. A stop-and-frisk to prevent crime cannot be subsumed under a search incidental to arrest. Petitioner’s act of opening the bag did not constitute a knowing, intelligent waiver of his rights.
Therefore, the search violated petitioner’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures, rendering the seized items inadmissible.

Ruling on Integrity and Chain of Custody

Even assuming arguendo a valid arrest and search, the Court found that:
• The inventory of the seized items was performed belatedly at the station, not at the scene, without independent witnesses.
• The evidence was turned over to an investigating officer and later kept in PO3 Dimla’s personal locker, rather than in the custody of the designated evidence custodian.
• No proof was offered regarding the custodian’s attendance at police schooling to justify the deviation.
These lapses u

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.