Title
People vs. Olarte y Namuag
Case
G.R. No. 233209
Decision Date
Mar 11, 2019
Herofil Olarte convicted for illegal possession of a hand grenade after a valid warrantless arrest; evidence upheld, defenses of frame-up and denial dismissed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233209)

Key Dates

July 19, 2014 – Arrest of accused‐appellant in possession of a hand grenade and .25 caliber pistol replica
January 27, 2016 – RTC issues Joint Judgment convicting accused‐appellant of illegal possession of a hand grenade (RA 9516) and dismissing the pistol charge
April 6, 2017 – CA affirms RTC decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01501-MIN
March 11, 2019 – Supreme Court renders final decision

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution (warrantless arrest, due process, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
Republic Act No. 9516 (amending PD 1866 on illegal possession of explosives)
Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act)
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Section 5 (warrantless arrests)
Rules of Court, Rule 110, Section 14 (amendment of information)

Antecedents of the Case

Accused‐appellant was charged in two Informations: Crim. Case No. 2014-830 for unauthorized possession of an M61 fragmentation grenade with M204A2 fuse assembly and Crim. Case No. 2014-831 for possession of a .25 caliber pistol replica, both alleged to have occurred on July 19, 2014, near LBC Express, Pabayo-Chavez Streets, Cagayan de Oro City.

Prosecution’s Version of Events

Members of Task Force “Boy Solo” observed a man resembling a robbery suspect on CCTV drawing a gun as he approached an LBC branch. Officers pursued and arrested him near Ororama Superstore in Cogon after a foot chase. A search yielded a grenade, pistol replica, screwdriver, and suspected methamphetamine. The grenade was marked “RMI2,” turned over to PNP Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel, who certified it as an M61 fragmentation grenade with M204A2 fuse assembly.

Accused’s Version of Events

Accused‐appellant claimed two civilians in plain clothes forcefully handcuffed him as he rode a jeepney, brought him to Police Station 1-Divisoria, and later had evidence planted in his bag. He alleged coercion to admit possession of the grenade and replica pistol but offered no corroborating evidence.

RTC Proceedings and Ruling

Following a fire that destroyed initial records, the RTC re-arraigned the accused and admitted judicial affidavits. The prosecution obtained leave to amend the grenade’s fuse marking from “M204 X 2” to “M204 A 2.” On January 27, 2016, the RTC:
– Convicted accused‐appellant of illegal possession of a hand grenade, citing lawful in flagrante delicto arrest and weak defenses of denial and alibi
– Dismissed the pistol replica charge for a defective Information under RA 10591

Court of Appeals Decision

On April 6, 2017, the CA affirmed the grenade conviction, holding that:
– The warrantless arrest was valid under Section 5(a), Rule 113, as accused‐appellant was caught attempting to commit robbery by drawing a firearm
– The amendment of the Information was a clerical correction and did not prejudice the accused
– The chain of custody and testimonial sponsorship of the grenade were properly established
– Trial court’s credibility assessments merit deference

Issues Presented

  1. Legality of the warrantless arrest and admissibility of the seized grenade
  2. Validity of the Information’s amendment correcting the fuse assembly marking
  3. Integrity and identity of the corpus delicti (hand grenade) and whether any reasonable doubt arises

Supreme Court Ruling on Warrantless Arrest

Under the 1987 Constitution and Rule 113, Section 5(a), in flagrante delicto arrest requires:

  1. Overt act indicating commission or attempt of a crime (drawing a gun)
  2. Officer’s presence or view of that act
    Here, police officers reasonably suspected robbery and lawfully arrested accused‐appellant, triggering a valid incidental search. His failure to timely challenge the arrest estopped him from contesting its legality on appeal.

Amendment of Information and Due Process

Rule 110, Section 14 permits amendment in form or substance before plea and formal amendment during trial if no prejudice results. The amendment

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.