G.R. No. 95630 - Spouses Veroy vs. Layague

Case Summary (G.R. No. 95630)

Factual Background

On April 12, 1990, police officers acting on a directive and on information that the Veroys’ house in Skyline Village, Davao City, was a rebel safehouse entered the yard with the caretakers’ assistance but did not initially enter the house for lack of a search warrant and because the owners were absent. Petitioner Ma. Luisa Veroy telephoned and authorized entry to ascertain whether rebel soldiers were present, provided that Major Ernesto Macasaet be present. With the caretakers’ assistance and using a kitchen key entrusted to the housekeeper, officers gained entry into the kitchen and, with a locksmith, forced open a padlocked door to a children’s room where they conducted a search.

Items Seized and Custody of Seized Articles

During the search officers recovered a .45 caliber handgun with magazine and seven live rounds in a black clutch bag, printed material relating to RAM‑SFP, and other articles from the children’s room and master’s bedroom. An inventory and receipt were prepared by Sgt. Leo Justalero and signed by a caretaker and the locksmith. The seized articles were turned over to police custody at the station.

Prosecution and Trial Court Proceedings

On August 6, 1990, Acting Provincial Prosecutor Rodolfo Ponferrada recommended filing an Information for Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in furtherance of rebellion). The Information was filed on August 8, 1990 as Criminal Case No. 20595‑90, People of the Philippines v. Atty. Leopoldo Veroy and Mrs. Maria Luisa Veroy. The prosecution did not recommend bail. The Veroys filed a motion for bail and later surrendered voluntarily to the PC‑CIS but were initially refused reception for lack of arrest warrant copies. The trial court set hearings, arraigned the Veroys, denied their motion for hospital confinement by order dated October 2, 1990, and ordered their commitment to the Davao City Rehabilitation Center pending trial.

Proceedings Before This Court and Interim Orders

Petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition in this Court seeking certiorari, mandamus and prohibition to review the trial court’s order denying hospital confinement, to compel resolution of the motion for bail, and to prohibit further proceedings on constitutionality grounds. This Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on October 25, 1990 restraining the trial judge from proceeding on the hospital confinement motion and restraining Brig. Gen. Dumlao from transferring the petitioners from St. Luke’s Hospital. On November 20, 1990 this Court granted provisional liberty and set bail at P20,000 each, which the petitioners posted.

Issues Presented

The remaining contested issue was the petition for prohibition raising three principal contentions: (1) that Presidential Decree No. 1866, or at least its third paragraph of Section 1, was unconstitutional as violative of due process and equal protection; (2) that Republic Act No. 6968 repealed PD No. 1866; and (3) that, assuming PD No. 1866’s validity, the trial court gravely abused its discretion in admitting seized articles obtained in violation of the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Petitioners’ Contentions on Possession and Search

Petitioners contended that they were not in actual possession of the firearm and other items because they resided in Quezon City since 1988 and had left caretakers in Davao City, that no evidence other than ownership of the house established possession or control, and that no showing of animus possidendi or knowledge existed. They further asserted that the search exceeded the limited permission given by Ma. Luisa Veroy to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers and that the subsequent room‑to‑room search and seizure were therefore unconstitutional and rendered the seized items inadmissible.

Respondents’ Position and Procedural Concessions

Respondents conceded that the trials on other procedural questions had been mooted by this Court’s prior orders and that only the prohibition petition remained. They defended the prosecution and the trial court’s actions, including the conduct of the search pursuant to the authority communicated by Ma. Luisa Veroy and the subsequent use of the seized articles as evidence.

Court’s Analysis on Constitutionality of PD No. 1866 and Effect of RA No. 6968

The Court noted that the question of the constitutionality of the third paragraph of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 had been addressed in Misolas v. Panga, G.R. No. 83341, January 30, 1990, where this Court rejected a declaration of unconstitutionality on the ground that PD No. 1866 did not amount to a bill of attainder nor did it permit double jeopardy. The Court applied the rule of statutory construction that statutes expressed in plain language are to be given their clear meaning and observed that PD No. 1866 and Republic Act No. 6968 prescribed distinct offenses—illegal possession of firearms and offenses of rebellion, coup d’état, sedition and disloyalty—and that RA 6968 did not repeal PD No. 1866.

Court’s Analysis on Constructive Possession

Citing precedent, the Court recognized that conviction for mala prohibita offenses still requires proof of possession and that constructive possession demands proof of the requisite animus possidendi or knowledge. The Court invoked early authority including U.S. v. Jose and Tan Bo., 34 Phil. 724 (1916) to illustrate that mere ownership of premises where contraband is found does not, without more, suffice to establish possession; any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

Court’s Analysis on Search and Seizure and Admissibility of Evidence

The Court applied Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, holding that the warrant requirement is not absolute but that recognized exceptions did not apply in this case. The Court found that the officers, having initi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 95630)

Parties and Posture

Spouses Leopoldo and Ma. Luisa Veroy filed a petition under Rule 65, Rules of Court praying for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.
The Hon. William L. Layague was named as respondent in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch XIV, Regional Trial Court, Davao City.
Brig. Gen. Pantaleon Dumlao was named as respondent in his capacity as Commanding General, PC-Criminal Investigation Service.
The petition initially sought certiorari to review an order denying hospital confinement, mandamus to compel resolution of a bail motion, and prohibition to enjoin further criminal proceedings.
The Court treated the certiorari and mandamus components as moot or academic because of prior orders of this Court and proceeded to resolve the prohibition petition.

Key Facts

Petitioners owned a residence at No. 13 Isidro St., Skyline Village, Davao City but had resided in Quezon City since 1988.
Two caretakers and a housekeeper maintained the Davao residence while petitioners retained keys to the master and children's bedrooms.
On April 12, 1990, Capt. Reynaldo Obrero, acting on a directive of Metrodiscom, entered the yard and sought permission from Ma. Luisa Veroy by telephone to search the house.
Ma. Luisa Veroy authorized entry only to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers and conditioned the search on the presence of Major Ernesto Macasaet.
Using a kitchen key entrusted to the housekeeper and a locksmith to open a padlocked children's room, officers entered and seized a .45 caliber handgun and other articles from the children's room and master bedroom.
An inventory was made and the seized items were delivered to the police station, after which a complaint resulted in the filing of an Information for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (illegal possession of firearms and ammunition in furtherance of rebellion).
Petitioners moved for bail and hospital confinement, were denied hospital confinement and initially denied bail by the trial court, obtained a Temporary Restraining Order from this Court, and later secured provisional liberty from this Court upon posting bail at P20,000 each.

Statutory Framework

Presidential Decree No. 1866 prescribes illegal possession of firearms and ammunition in furtherance of rebellion.
Republic Act No. 6968 addresses rebellion, coup d'etat, sedition, and related offenses.
Article III, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution guarantees security against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Rule 65, Rules of Court provided the procedural vehicle for the petition filed by petitioners.

Issues Presented

Whether the third paragraph of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 is unconstitutional for violating the due process and equal protection clauses.
Whether Republic Act No. 6968 repealed Presidential Decree No. 1866.
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in admitting into evidence items allegedly seized in violation of the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Procedural History

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City filed an Information on August 8, 1990 in Criminal Case No. 20595-90 entitled People of the Philippines v. Atty.