Title
Supreme Court
Picardal y Baluyot vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 235749
Decision Date
Jun 19, 2019
Picardal acquitted of illegal firearm possession after SC ruled evidence inadmissible due to illegal search during arrest for public urination.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 235749)

Key Dates

  • March 28, 2014: Alleged possession of a .38 revolver with five live ammunitions
  • September 24, 2015: RTC decision convicting petitioner
  • May 31, 2017: CA decision affirming conviction
  • October 27, 2017: CA resolution denying reconsideration
  • June 19, 2019: Supreme Court decision

Places

  • Baseco PNP Compound, Port Area, Manila (Ermita Police Station)
  • Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 21
  • Court of Appeals, Manila
  • Supreme Court of the Philippines

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Sections 2 and 3(2) (search and seizure)
  • Republic Act No. 10591, Section 28(a) in relation to Section 28(e-1) (unlicensed firearms possession)
  • MMDA Regulation No. 96-009, Section 2(a) (prohibition against public urination; penalized by fine or community service only)

Facts

PO1 Peniano, together with two companions, observed Picardal allegedly urinating in public near Baseco market at around 8:00 PM. They invited him to the station for violation of MMDA Regulation No. 96-009. As Peniano attempted to handcuff Picardal, he tried to flee; Peniano seized his hand, frisked him, and recovered a rusty .38 revolver with five live rounds. Picardal was taken to the precinct, Mirandized, referred for medical exam, and the firearm turned over to P/Chief Insp. Santos. The next day, PO1 Peniano retrieved the items for marking, and a Firearms and Explosives Division (FED) certification confirmed that the weapon was a loose firearm and that Picardal held no license or permit.

Picardal denied the charge. He testified that he was buying viand when officers wrongfully accused him of urinating, seized his phone, and detained him overnight. He denied owning the gun and requested fingerprint comparison, which was refused. The separate public-urination case was dismissed by the Metropolitan Trial Court.

Ruling of the RTC

The RTC found the prosecution proved: (1) existence of the firearm; and (2) unlawful possession without license or permit. It rejected Picardal’s denial as self-serving and weak, convicted him under RA 10591, and imposed an indeterminate penalty of 8 years 1 day to 10 years 8 months 1 day of prision mayor.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA affirmed, relying on the officers’ uncontradicted testimony and the FED certification that Picardal was not a licensed firearms holder.

Issue

Whether the RTC and the CA erred in upholding a conviction based on evidence obtained from an unlawful search.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

  1. Finality Rule and Exceptions
    The SC acknowledges that CA factual findings are generally conclusive, subject to eleven recognized exceptions.

  2. Manifest Overlooking of Undisputed Facts (9th Exception)
    The CA overlooked that:

    • The frisk and seizure stemmed from an alleged MMDA regulation violation (public urination).
    • That regulation carries only a fine or community service, not imprisonment.
      Hence, no lawful arrest ever occurred.
  3. Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest
    Under the Constitution (Art. III, Secs. 2 and 3[2]) and SC precedents (Luz v. People; Sindac v. People), a warrantless search is lawful only if inciden

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.