Title
Virgilio Macabuhay y Payas vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 270337
Decision Date
Aug 13, 2025
COMELEC's election gun ban powers ultra vires including bladed weapons; acquittal upheld despite valid arrest.
election law
omnibus election code
deadly weapon

Case Summary (G.R. No. 270337)

Factual Background

During the 2019 election period, the police established a checkpoint along the National Highway in Barangay West Talaongan, Cavinti, Laguna, positioned directly across the police station. Police Officer II Ranil G. Perez and Police Officer I Ronald P. Perea were among those posted at the checkpoint.

On January 30, 2019, at around 2:00 p.m., the checkpoint officers observed a motorcycle approaching, driven by petitioner, who was not wearing a helmet. The officers signaled petitioner to stop, but he failed to comply. The officers blocked his path at a second barrier and then questioned him. They asked why he was not wearing a helmet and required his driver’s license and the motorcycle’s registration, which petitioner could not produce. He explained that the motorcycle belonged to a friend, Jessie A. Tablico.

During the interaction, the officers noted that petitioner appeared restless and visibly nervous. As petitioner alighted, they noticed a knife tucked into his waistband. When asked to lift his shirt, petitioner complied and exposed a fan knife (balisong) measuring approximately eleven inches. The officers photographed petitioner with the fan knife still tucked in his waistband before confiscating it. After confiscation, the knife was marked with the initials “VPM”, corresponding to petitioner’s name. Petitioner was then arrested.

Defense Version

Petitioner testified in his own behalf. While he admitted that he was not wearing a helmet and that he drove without a driver’s license, he denied possessing the fan knife and claimed police fabrication.

Petitioner stated that after he alighted from the motorcycle, the officers frisked him and took his phone and wallet. He claimed that he was ordered to open the motorcycle compartment but he refused, prompting the officers to open it forcibly. He further alleged that one officer lifted his shirt and then tucked a fan knife into his right waist. He also claimed that after the officers took his photograph showing him with the fan knife tucked in his right waist, he was brought to the police station without being informed of the arrest’s basis. He suspected the arrest was connected to a drug case in Lumban, Laguna, to which he said he pleaded guilty, and to his inclusion in a tokhang list in Cavinti, Laguna.

RTC Proceedings and Judgment

After arraignment, petitioner pleaded “not guilty.” Trial ensued with the prosecution relying mainly on the testimonies of PO2 Perez and PO1 Perea, and the defense relying on petitioner’s own narration.

In its September 16, 2021 Judgment, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 2(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 10446, in relation to Section 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 32 of Republic Act No. 7166, for carrying a deadly weapon during the election period without the necessary COMELEC authority. The RTC ruled that the prosecution established possession of the fan knife within the election period while petitioner was riding a motorcycle. It also found that petitioner failed to show any COMELEC authority to possess or carry the weapon.

The RTC imposed an indeterminate penalty of one year as minimum to two years as maximum.

CA Review and Affirmance

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in its June 7, 2023 Decision affirmed the RTC and dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of merit. The CA held that the prosecution had established all elements of the offense. It reasoned that petitioner was in possession of a deadly weapon during the election period and found no evidence that the fan knife was necessary for his occupation or for legitimate activity.

The CA also addressed petitioner’s attack on the legality of the arrest and search. It stated that petitioner waived any challenge to the legality of his arrest by pleading “not guilty” and participating in trial without timely raising the issue. In any event, it deemed the warrantless arrest valid. It further ruled that while checkpoint inspections are generally limited to routine inspection, more extensive search may be conducted when officers have probable cause to believe the person is engaged in unlawful activity. It concluded that petitioner’s attempt to evade the checkpoint and his failure to show driver’s license and motorcycle registration raised sufficient suspicion.

The CA also applied the plain view doctrine, reasoning that petitioner’s shirt was lifted while he was alighting and that the fan knife was noticed as a result. It thus concluded that the search did not require a warrant and that the arrest could proceed under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The CA rejected petitioner’s claim of planting, finding that he neither identified the officer who supposedly planted the knife nor offered proof to rebut the presumption of regularity in official duties. On September 29, 2023, the CA denied reconsideration.

Issues Raised in the Petition

Petitioner assigned three main errors. First, he argued that COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 was unconstitutional, contending that the term “deadly weapons” does not include bladed instruments based on Buella v. People. Second, he argued that the CA erred in convicting him despite alleged inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses and despite the alleged inadmissibility of the evidence. Third, he argued that the prosecution failed to prove the elements beyond reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court’s Ruling: Acquittal

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CA. The Court held that petitioner must be acquitted because the inclusion of bladed instruments in the definition of “deadly weapons” in COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 was ultra vires. The Court declared that bladed instruments are excluded from the term “deadly weapons” in COMELEC Resolution No. 10446, thereby negating the statutory basis for criminal liability for carrying a fan knife during the 2019 election period without the COMELEC authorization alleged in the charge.

Rule 45 and the Scope of Review

The Court noted that the appeal was under Rule 45, which allows only questions of law. It reiterated that in criminal cases, an appeal opens the entire case for review and the appellate tribunal may correct errors even if not specifically assigned, including reversing based on other legal grounds.

Legality of Arrest and Search

Even as it found petitioner entitled to acquittal on the legal nullity of the relevant COMELEC definition as to bladed instruments, the Court also addressed petitioner’s claims regarding the arrest and search.

Petitioner contended that the fan knife was inadmissible as a fruit of the poisonous tree, arguing that the warrantless search preceded the warrantless arrest, violating the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court rejected this theory.

The Court reiterated the general rule that no search or seizure may be conducted without a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause, citing Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. It recognized exceptions, including: (a) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, (b) seizure in plain view, (c) search of a moving vehicle, (d) consent, (e) customs searches, (f) stop and frisk, and (g) exigent and emergency circumstances.

Probable Cause at Checkpoint and Valid Warrantless Search

The Court explained that warrantless arrest is valid in limited situations and that jurisprudence recognizes that while a warrantless search generally follows a warrantless arrest, a search may be substantially contemporaneous with an arrest, provided probable cause existed at the outset.

It treated the checkpoint as a permissible variant of searching moving vehicles so long as it was justified by public order and conducted with minimal intrusion. It stressed that while routine checkpoint inspections are generally limited, vehicles may be extensively searched when there is probable cause that the motorist is a law offender or that the contents are instruments of an offense.

Applying this framework, the Court held that the police officers had probable cause. It relied on the fact that petitioner attempted to evade the checkpoint by ignoring signals to stop and was apprehended at the second barrier. It further noted that petitioner failed to present the required driver’s license and vehicle registration when asked. The Court held that the combination of evasive behavior and failure to produce the documents reasonably raised suspicion that petitioner was engaged in unlawful activity, such as stealing the motorcycle, which justified the warrantless search.

The Court clarified that the arrest was not based on a mere traffic infraction. It considered petitioner’s evasive conduct and inability to present the required documents as the basis for reasonable grounds to suspect unlawful activity.

Plain View Doctrine

The Court further held that the plain view doctrine applied. It accepted that petitioner’s shirt was lifted while he was alighting, allowing the officers to notice a fan knife tucked into his waist. Under this doctrine, when an officer has the right to be in the position to view an object, the object may be seized and presented in evidence if it is plainly visible.

It thus saw no constitutional violation requiring exclusion of the evidence.

The Controlling Legal Error: Ultra Vires Inclusion of Bladed Instruments

Despite the Court’s upholding of the arrest and search under established exceptions, it still ruled that petitioner must be acquitted because the underlying offense theory was legally defective.

The Court held that Section 2(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 was null and void insofar as it included “bladed instruments” in the list of deadly weapons prohibited during the 2019 election period. It treated the controlling authority as Buella v. People, where the Court had declared that bladed instruments were excluded from “deadly weapons” under a similar COMELEC regulatory scheme for the 2016 election period. The

...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