Title
Ta-ala y Constantino vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 254800
Decision Date
Jun 20, 2022
Police arrested Ta-ala without a warrant for illegal firearms possession, but inconsistencies in the officers' account rendered the arrest invalid. The Supreme Court dismissed charges, ruling evidence inadmissible due to illegal arrest and flawed inquest proceedings.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199977)

Core factual account of the arrest and affidavit of arrest

On August 6, 2016, CIDG officers conducted a sting at Atlas Shippers in Bacolod City and effected a warrantless arrest of petitioner and an accompanying person, Wilford Palma a.k.a. Michael Diamante. The arresting officers executed an Affidavit of Arrest dated August 8, 2016 before ASP Vito Cruz. That affidavit and related prosecution papers describe seizure of a Glock 26 9mm pistol (SN ELR043), magazines, live ammunition, and a box containing numerous firearm parts and accessories supposedly shipped from the United States (HBL No. 1342580). The affidavit narrates that the officers saw petitioner with a pistol tucked in his waist and that the same Glock 26 pistol also appeared among the items inside the opened box claimed by Palma.

Contradiction in arresting officers' account and its significance

A central fact highlighted by the record is the irreconcilable account in the officers’ own papers: the Glock 26 SN ELR043 is described as both (a) observed on petitioner’s person (tucked in his waist) and (b) located inside the box that Palma allegedly claimed and inspected. The Supreme Court found these conflicting versions, both emanating from the arresting officers and the Letter‑Complaint, to be demonstrative of fabrication and to fatally undermine any claim of valid in flagrante delicto arrest or lawful seizure. The Court emphasized that such contradictions cannot be disregarded and erode the credibility of the police narrative relied upon to justify the warrantless arrest and incidental search.

DOJ inquest proceedings and subsequent resolutions

ASP Vito Cruz conducted inquest proceedings and issued resolutions dated August 22, 2016 and September 13, 2016 (NPS Docket No. XVI‑INQ‑16H‑00110). The August 22 resolution recommended filing two informations under Section 28, RA 10591 (illegal possession of a firearm and illegal possession of firearms accessories) and dismissed the complaint against Palma for lack of probable cause while recommending his admission to the Witness Protection Program. The September 13 resolution later found probable cause for additional charges: Section 33, RA 10591 (arms smuggling) and violations of Sections 101(a) and 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code (smuggling/unlawful importation). The Supreme Court reversed and set aside both DOJ resolutions.

Informations filed and charge consolidation

The DOJ filed four informations in total: two initially for violations of Section 28 (Criminal Cases Nos. 16‑43163 and 16‑43164), and later additional informations for violation of Section 33 (Criminal Case No. 16‑43487) and for Tariff and Customs Code violations (Criminal Case No. 16‑43488). Criminal Case No. 16‑43164 was later withdrawn by the prosecution; Criminal Case No. 16‑43488 was also withdrawn. Criminal Case No. 16‑43163 (illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions) proceeded before RTC‑Branch 46 and Criminal Case No. 16‑43487 (illegal importation of firearm accessories) proceeded before RTC‑Branch 54. The prosecution sought amendments and consolidation on various occasions; the courts entertained some amendments and denied others.

Trial court rulings on motions to quash, suppression, bail and arraignment

Petitioner filed motions to quash informations and to suppress evidence, and an omnibus motion in the importation case addressing consolidation, probable cause, bail, and suppression. RTC‑Branch 46 denied the motion to quash and suppression in Criminal Case No. 16‑43163 and allowed the prosecution to amend and admit an amended information; petitioner was arraigned on November 22, 2016 and refused to enter a plea (court entered not guilty). RTC‑Branch 54 denied petitioner’s omnibus motion in Criminal Case No. 16‑43487, found probable cause for the importation offense, denied bail, later admitted an amended information, and arraigned petitioner on November 16, 2016 (he again refused to plead). The courts relied substantially on the arresting officers' affidavit and the DOJ inquest resolutions to find probable cause and to uphold the warrantless arrest and seizure.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

Petitioner filed two petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP Nos. 10697 and 10873) challenging the RTC orders and resolutions denying his motions. The Court of Appeals consolidated the petitions and, by Decision dated May 9, 2019, dismissed them for lack of merit, holding that certiorari was not the proper remedy to challenge the trial courts’ dispositions and that the warrantless arrest was valid because the officers allegedly saw the firearm on petitioner’s person and in the package. A motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied by resolution dated January 30, 2020.

Issues before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the principal issues: whether the petition was academic/moot; whether petitioner’s warrantless arrest was valid; and whether a valid inquest or preliminary investigation had been conducted. The Office of the Solicitor General argued the petition raised principally factual questions and that remedies lay at trial, asserting that petitioner’s arraignment mooted the motions to quash.

Supreme Court’s ruling on mootness and waiver

The Supreme Court held the petition was not academic. It reviewed Rule 114 §26 (an application for bail does not bar challenging the validity of arrest or irregularity of preliminary investigation provided the challenge is made before entering a plea) and precedent (People v. Vallejo) explaining that a defendant who timely files motions to quash or suppress before arraignment does not waive those objections simply because a plea of not guilty was entered by the court after the defendant refused to plead. The Court found petitioner timely raised his challenges prior to arraignment and that a valid waiver could not reasonably be inferred in the circumstances; thus the petition was not rendered moot by arraignment.

Supreme Court’s finding of invalid warrantless arrest and exclusionary rule application

Applying Rule 113 §5 and in‑flagrante delicto principles (cited cases including Ambre), the Supreme Court concluded the arrest was unlawful. The Court emphasized that the arresting officers’ own affidavit contains mutually inconsistent and irreconcilable statements regarding the Glock pistol’s location (on petitioner’s person and also in the box), rendering their account incredible and indicative of fabrication and planting of evidence. Because the warrantless arrest and the incidental search could not be justified, all evidence obtained thereby — specifically the Glock 26 pistol, magazines, ammunition, and the boxful of firearm parts and accessories — were deemed fruits of the poisonous tree and inadmissible under the exclusionary rule (Article III Sections 2 and 3 of the 1987 Constitution and the rule stated in the Decision). The Court held that without admissible corpus delicti evidence, the criminal cases could not stand.

Supreme Court’s ruling on inquest, Article 125 and unlawful continued detention despite bail

The Court addressed the inquest and subsequent conversion to preliminary investigation. It recited Article 125 (delay in delivery of detained persons to judicial authorities) and held that the inquest should have stopped when the 36‑hour period lapsed; if more time were needed, the inquest could be converted to a preliminary investigation only with petitioner’s consent or waiver, or petitioner should have been released pending the extended inquiry. The Court found that ASP Vito Cruz filed the two later informations (for illegal importation and Tariff and Customs offenses) long after the inquest timelines expired and without petitioner’s consent or waiver, while petitioner had posted bail in the earlier cases. RTC‑Branch 46’s refusal to release petitioner despite approved bail was held to contravene Rule 114 (Sect

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms