Title
Valeroso vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 164815
Decision Date
Sep 3, 2009
A police officer was acquitted after the Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search violated his constitutional rights, rendering seized evidence inadmissible.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 164815)

Procedural History

– RTC conviction (May 6, 1998): Indeterminate sentence of 4 years, 2 months + 1 day to 6 years; firearm confiscated
– CA affirmation with minor reduction of minimum term (May 4, 2004)
– SC denial of petition for review (February 22, 2008) and denial of Motion for Reconsideration (June 30, 2008)
– Letter-Appeal filed by petitioner seeking acquittal based on violation of constitutional rights

Admission of Letter-Appeal (Second Reconsideration)

Although generally prohibited, this Court exercised discretion to treat the Letter-Appeal as a second motion for reconsideration. Precedents (De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan; Astorga v. People; Sta. Rosa Realty v. Amante) justify suspension of procedural rules to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Constitutional Issue: Unreasonable Search and Seizure

Petitioner contends the warrantless search violated Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, rendering the firearm and ammunition inadmissible under Section 3(2). The Office of the Solicitor General, through its late Manifestation, also recommended acquittal on the same ground.

Applicable Constitutional Principle

Section 2, Article III guarantees inviolability of person and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring search or arrest warrants based on probable cause, particularly describing places and items to be seized. Section 3(2) mandates exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of these rights.

Enumerated Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

Recognized exceptions include:
• Search incident to lawful arrest
• Plain-view seizure
• Search of a moving vehicle
• Consent
• Customs search
• Stop and frisk
• Exigent or emergency circumstances
• Inspection for regulatory purposes

Analysis: Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

Rule 126, Section 13 allows search of arrestee and immediately accessible area. Here, officers secured Valeroso outside the room with hands tied before searching. The locked cabinet fell outside the “area of immediate control,” eliminating any risk of weapon use or evidence destruction. The search thus exceeded the permissible scope.

Analysis: Plain View Doctrine

The doctrine applies to inadvertent discovery of incriminating items during an authorized intrusion. In this case, officers actively searched closed containers in pursuit of evidence, not m

...continue reading

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