Case Summary (G.R. No. 123595)
Custodial Investigation and Evidence Handling
Next morning, investigator Serapio conducted inquest without counsel present; petitioner gave an uncounselled confession admitting grenade possession. The grenade was turned over to Bomb Disposal Unit seven months later, examined by expert Ramilo, who certified it as live and capable of exploding. No marking or testimony linked the examined grenade to the one allegedly seized from petitioner.
Trial Court Ruling (R.T.C.)
- Validated arrest and search as a “stop-and-frisk” and search incidental to lawful arrest, citing emergency due to bomb threats and flight of suspects.
- Held probable cause unnecessary at the moment of detention.
- Admitted both the seized grenade and petitioner’s confession.
- Found guilt beyond reasonable doubt under PD 1866 § 3; imposed 17 years+ reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- Accepted R.T.C.’s finding of lawful arrest: petitioner was “attempting to commit an offense” by mere possession in a volatile, high-risk locale, supported by prior chase and intelligence reports.
- Articulated that requiring absolute proof for probable cause in terroristic situations would cripple law enforcement.
- Distinguished People v. Mengote on grounds of intelligence reports and prior personal knowledge by arresting officer.
Supreme Court Jurisdictional Holding
- Maximum penalty reclusion perpetua; appeal should have been to the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals.
- Set aside Court of Appeals decision for lack of jurisdiction; treated petition as direct appeal.
Search and Arrest Invalidity
- Warrantless arrest: no in flagrante or hot-pursuit grounds—no overt act, no personal knowledge of crime in presence of officer.
- Search incidental to arrest: invalid because arrest itself was unlawful.
- Stop-and-frisk: unjustified—petitioner’s mere rapid eye movements at dusk did not give rise to reasonable suspicion of weapons.
- Chain of custody broken: police failed to identify or preserve the specific grenade seized from petitioner; the examined grenade arrived seven months later without clear linkage.
Confession Inadmissibility
- Vio
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 123595)
Facts
- On August 27, 1990, Police Officer Rodolfo Yu and three uniformed companions conducted foot patrols along Quezon Boulevard near Plaza Miranda, Manila, in response to bomb threats reported a week earlier.
- Officer Yu observed two groups of “Muslim-looking” men acting suspiciously, with “eyes moving very fast,” and stalked one group for thirty minutes.
- When police approached, one group fled; Yu pursued and apprehended petitioner Sammy Malacat y Mandar. A fragmentation grenade was allegedly found tucked in his front waistline.
- Another officer arrested Abdul Casan from the second group and recovered a .38-caliber revolver. Both suspects were brought to Police Station No. 3; Yu marked the grenade with an “X” before turning it over to his commander.
- Petitioner denied possession of the grenade at trial and testified he was lawfully standing at the corner to catch fresh air, was beaten and accused falsely of shooting an officer, and saw the grenade only later in court.
Procedural History
- August 30, 1990: Information filed in RTC Manila Branch 5, charging petitioner with illegal possession of a hand grenade under Section 3, P.D. No. 1866.
- October 9, 1990: Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
- March 11, 1991: At pre-trial, parties stipulated exhibits and admitted police had no search or arrest warrant.
- February 10, 1994 (promulgated February 15, 1994): RTC convicted petitioner of illegal possession of explosives; sentenced to 17 years, 4 months, 1 day to 30 years of reclusion perpetua.
- February 18, 1994: Notice of appeal filed. Record sent to Court of Appeals (CA) instead of Supreme Court.
- January 24, 1996: CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 15988 affirmed RTC decision, holding (a) arrest was valid for attempted crime in flagrante; (b) hand grenade admissible.
- February 12, 1997: Petitioner filed petition for review with the Supreme Court, assigning errors on legality of warrantless arrest and search and applicability of People v. Mengote.
Issues
- Was the warrantless arrest of petitioner lawful under Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court (in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit)?
- Was the seizure of the hand grenade from petitioner valid as a search incidental to lawful arrest or as a “stop-and-frisk”?
- Was petitioner’s custodial confession admissible under Article III, Section 12(1) and (3) of the Constitution?
- Did the CA have jurisdiction to hear the appeal given the penalty of reclusion perpetua?
Trial Court Ruling
- Characte