Case Summary (G.R. No. 215305)
Key Dates
Incident: 5 May 2009 (bus flagged down and inspection).
Inquest resolution finding probable cause: 7 May 2009.
Information filed: 8 May 2009.
Trial court Sentence: 15 September 2011.
Court of Appeals Decision: 26 June 2014; Resolution denying reconsideration: 15 October 2014.
Supreme Court disposition: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 (Decision affirmed).
Applicable Law
Primary criminal statute charged: Presidential Decree No. 1866 (codifying unlawful possession, manufacture, dealing in, acquisition or disposition of firearms, ammunition or explosives).
Constitutional provision considered: Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution (prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures).
Legal standards referenced: Katz two-part expectation of privacy test; Philippine jurisprudence on searches in public conveyances, airports, seaports, and consented searches.
Antecedent Facts
At a military checkpoint on 5 May 2009, Task Force Davao flagged down Bus No. 66 and requested all male passengers to disembark. SCAA Buco boarded and visually inspected baggage. A small gray-black pack bag on a rear seat appeared unusually heavy. The bus conductor identified the occupants at the back as petitioner and his brother; the conductor pointed to petitioner when asked who owned the bag. Petitioner told the officer the bag contained a cellphone and, when asked, allowed the officer to open it. The opened bag disclosed: an improvised .30-caliber carbine (serial no. 64702), one magazine with three live rounds, one cacao-type hand grenade, and a ten-inch hunting knife. Petitioner could not produce a license and was arrested and informed of rights; probable cause was found and formal charges were filed.
Information and Charges
The Information charged petitioner with unlawful, willful, and knowing possession of an improvised high-powered .30-caliber carbine (Serial No. 64702), one magazine with three live ammunition rounds, and one cacao-type hand grenade, without the necessary license or permit, in violation of PD 1866.
Trial Proceedings and Evidence
Prosecution witnesses: SCAA Buco (testified to the checkpoint procedure, the conductor’s identification of petitioner, petitioner’s statements, and the discovery of the firearm and explosive) and NUP Tabura (identified a PNP FED certification that petitioner was not a licensed/registered firearm holder). Defense: petitioner testified denying ownership of the bag but admitted that he told the officer the bag contained a cellphone and that he consented to the opening of the bag when asked. Chain of custody of the seized items was not disputed. The prosecution waived rebuttal evidence.
Trial Court Decision
The trial court found petitioner’s denials self-serving and weak and concluded that petitioner was in actual or constructive possession of the seized firearm, ammunition, and explosive without authority. The trial court convicted petitioner of illegal possession of high-powered firearm and ammunition and illegal possession of explosive under PD 1866, imposing imprisonment terms and fines as set out in the sentence dated 15 September 2011.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications of the penalties. It found the prosecution proved lack of license through the FED certification and found petitioner’s claim of non-ownership unconvincing given his own admissions and conduct. The CA held that (1) the bus inspection was reasonable given the reduced expectation of privacy in public transportation, and (2) petitioner voluntarily consented to opening the bag when he told the officer “yes, just open it.” The CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal and denied his motion for reconsideration as pro forma.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Petitioner contended that the search was illegal and that the trial court and Court of Appeals misappreciated the evidence, warranting reversal of his conviction. The Supreme Court framed the matter within the confines of Rule 45 review: primarily issues of law, giving deference and finality to affirmed factual findings.
Supreme Court Ruling — Standard of Review and Finality of Facts
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA. It emphasized the limited scope of review under Rule 45—only questions of law may be raised—and recognized that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, enjoy great respect and finality. Consequently, the Court declined to reassess the credibility determinations supporting possession and lack of license.
Elements of the Offenses and Their Establishment
The Court reiterated the elements for illegal possession under PD 1866: (1) existence of the firearm, ammunition, or explosive; (2) ownership or possession (actual or constructive); and (3) lack of license to possess. The prosecution established existence (through discovery and identification of the items) and lack of license (through the FED certification and testimony). The Court accepted the trial court’s and CA’s finding that petitioner’s words and conduct (misleading identification of contents, allowing opening of the bag, conduct pointing to ownership) supported a finding of actual or constructive possession; the defense claim that the bag belonged to petitioner’s deceased brother was uncorroborated and self-serving.
Reasonableness of the Search — Expectation of Privacy Analysis
Applying Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and the Katz test, the Court explained that the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches applies only where a person has a subjective expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. The Court surveyed Philippine jurisprudence holding that airport and seaport security procedures and inspections of public conveyances involve diminished expectations of privacy and can constitute reasonable searches: passengers are routinely subjected to lessened privacy expectations for public safety. The Court analogized the bus inspection to airport and seaport procedures and to prior decisions upholding routine searches of public buses and similar public places. Given that public buses and their terminals are accessible to the public and that safety interests are compelling, the Court concluded that the bus inspection at the military checkpoint was a reasonable search not requiring a warrant.
Consent and Waiver of Constitutional Right
Separately, the Court evaluated petitioner's consent. A constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures may be waived by valid consent; valid consent must be voluntary, unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given without coercion. The Court enumerated factors relevant to voluntariness (age, location, objection or passive acquiescence, education, coercive police procedures, subjective state, and the nature and environment of questioning). On the record, petitioner himself testified that when asked if the bag could be o
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 215305)
Case Before the Court
- Nature of the case: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision dated 26 June 2014 and the Resolution dated 15 October 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 01099.
- Lower-court result being challenged: The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the Sentence dated 15 September 2011 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Davao City, in Criminal Case No. 65,734-09.
- Offenses adjudged by trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals: Illegal possession of high-powered firearm, ammunition, and explosive under Presidential Decree No. 1866 (PD 1866), as amended.
- Supreme Court disposition: The petition is denied; the Decision dated 26 June 2014 and the Resolution dated 15 October 2014 of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Antecedent Facts
- Date and place of incident: 5 May 2009, on Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle flagged down at a checkpoint near Tefasco Wharf in Ilang, Davao City by Task Force Davao of the Philippine Army.
- Task Force personnel involved: SCAA Junbert M. Buco (Buco), who requested male passengers to disembark while female passengers remained inside and proceeded to board the bus to inspect for contraband, illegal firearms, explosives, and suspicious individuals.
- Discovery leading to arrest:
- Buco checked baggage and personal effects; he observed a small gray-black pack bag on a rear seat that felt unusually heavy for its size.
- Buco noticed a male passenger in a white shirt (later identified as petitioner) peeping through the window toward the bag.
- When Buco asked ownership of the bag, the bus conductor said petitioner and his brother were seated at the back; Buco asked petitioner to board the bus and open the bag.
- Contents revealed upon opening: (1) an improvised .30 caliber carbine bearing serial number 64702; (2) one magazine with three live ammunitions; (3) one cacao-type hand grenade; and (4) a ten-inch hunting knife.
- Petitioner failed to produce any license or authority to possess firearms/explosives; he was arrested, informed of his rights, and brought for inquest before the Office of the City Prosecutor for Davao City.
Information, Arraignment, and Plea
- Information filed: Dated 8 May 2009, charging petitioner with willful, unlawful and knowing possession with intent to possess an improvised .30 caliber carbine (Serial No. 64702), one magazine with three live ammunitions, and a cacao-type hand grenade explosive without a license, contrary to law (PD 1866).
- Arraignment: Petitioner pleaded not guilty when arraigned.
Prosecution Evidence at Trial
- Number and identity of witnesses presented by the prosecution: Two witnesses — NUP Daniel Tabura (representative of the Firearms and Explosives Division of the Philippine National Police) and SCAA Buco.
- Evidence presented by Tabura:
- Identification of a Certification dated 5 November 2009 attesting petitioner was “not a licensed/registered holder of any kind and caliber per verification from records” (Exhibit “F”).
- Testimony of SCAA Buco (summary of key points):
- Described the checkpoint and routine inspection pursuant to a memorandum.
- Explained the procedure of asking passengers to alight and inspecting cargo.
- Identified the gray-black pack bag at the back of the bus as heavy for its size and recounted that the conductor pointed petitioner as owner; Buco asked petitioner to open the bag and saw the handle of the firearm.
- Narrated the immediate arrest after petitioner failed to show authority to carry the seized items.
- Cross-examination highlights from Buco’s testimony:
- Checkpoint was at Ilang Road; the search followed a memorandum instruction.
- Many bags were present; Buco singled out the small bag due to its weight.
- Buco observed petitioner looking toward the bag through the window and that the conductor pointed petitioner as owner.
Defense Evidence at Trial
- Defense presentation: Petitioner testified as the sole witness.
- Petitioner’s direct testimony (summary of key assertions):
- Denied ownership of the bag; stated the bag belonged to his elder brother, Roger Saluday (who later died in September 2009).
- Admitted he told the officer the bag “was only a cellphone” when questioned and that he allowed the officer to open the bag after being asked.
- Explained he answered because the conductor pointed at him and he was afraid; admitted he did not volunteer that it was his brother’s bag when boarding and had not disclosed he was with his brother.
- Cross-examination highlights:
- Petitioner confirmed the conductor pointed at him as the person seated at the back.
- Petitioner admitted he did not inform officers he had a companion (his brother) at the time he boarded.
Trial Court Decision and Sentence (Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Davao City)
- Trial court credibility determination: The court found petitioner’s denials to be self-serving and weak; concluded petitioner was in actual or constructive possession of the firearm and explosive without authority or license.
- Dispositive portion of the Sentence dated 15 September 2011:
- For illegal possession of high-powered firearm and ammunition: sentenced to prision mayor in its minimum period; fined P30,000.00.
- For illegal possession of explosive: sentenced to prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal; fined P50,000.00.
- Appeal: Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on 12 October 2011.
Court of Appeals Decision and Modification (CA, Decision dated 26 June 2014; Resolution dated 15 October 2014)
- Outcome on appeal: The Court of Appeals sustained the conviction and affirmed the trial court’s ruling with specified modifications to the penalties.
- Modifications ordered by the Court of Appeals:
- For illegal possession of high-powered firearm and ammunition: imposed an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional maximum (as minimum term) to seven (7) years and one (1) day of prision mayor minimum (as maximum term), plus the fine of P30,000.00.
- For illegal possession of explosive: sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
- Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner filed; Court of Appeals denied it as pro forma in its Resolution dated 15 October 2014.
- Resulting certiorari petition: Petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Issues Presented on Certiorari
- Primary issue raised by petitioner: Misappreciation of evidence by the trial court and Court of Appeals warranting reversal of conviction.
- Legal contention by petitioner on admissibility: Sought to argue illegality of the search by Task Force Davao, asserting the seized items were inadmissible.
- Government position (OSG) before appellate courts and Supreme Court: The warrantless search was valid as a consented search; factual findings of the trial court were supported by evidence and should remain undisturbed.
Standard of Review and Restraint on Appellate Fact-Finding
- Rule 45 limitation: Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45; appellate court is not duty-bound to reweigh and sift through trial evidence (citations: Section 1, Rule 45; Jose v. People).
- Finality and respect accorded to factual findings: Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are given great respect and finality (citations: De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals; Castillo; Navallo; People v. Cabalhin).
Elements of the Offenses Charged (as stated by the Court)
- Elements required to convict under PD 1866 for illegal possession of firearm/ammunition/explosive:
- (1) Existence of the firearm, ammunition or explosive.
- (2) Ownership or possession of the firearm, ammunition or explosive (actual or constructive).
- (3) Lack of license to own or possess the firearm, ammunition or explosive.
- Application of elements in the present case:
- Existence element: Proven by the seized firearm, magazine with live ammunitions, and hand grenade