Case Summary (G.R. No. 234818)
Petitioner
• Martin T. Villamor – charged under Section 3(c) of RA 9287 as a collector or agent of illegal betting
• Victor G. Bonaobra – charged under Section 3(d) of RA 9287 as a coordinator, controller, or supervisor
Respondent
• The People of the Philippines, prosecuting the criminal charges for violation of PD 1602, as amended by RA 9287
Key Dates
• June 17, 2005 – Alleged commission of illegal numbers game
• October 25, 2006 – RTC Branch 43 (Virac) conviction of both petitioners
• June 13, 2011 – CA affirmation of the RTC decision
• March 22, 2017 – Supreme Court decision reversing and acquitting petitioners
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Secs. 2 and 3(2) (right against unreasonable searches and seizures; exclusionary rule)
• Rule 113, Sec. 5, Rules of Court (warrantless arrest standards)
• PD 1602 as amended by RA 9287 (illegal numbers games penalties and definitions)
Factual Background
Police Superintendent Peñaflor received an anonymous tip on June 17, 2005 that an illegal numbers game was underway at Bonaobra’s residence. Along with other officers, he parked outside a bamboo-fenced compound about 15–20 meters from petitioners, claimed to have observed them counting bets (“revisar”), and, without a warrant, entered, confiscated cash (₱1,500), papelitos (bet slips), a calculator, and a cellphone, and arrested both.
Procedural Posture
• RTC Branch 43, Virac: Found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt; sentenced Villamor to 8 years + 1 day to 9 years, Bonaobra to 10 years + 1 day to 11 years; confiscated paraphernalia.
• CA: Affirmed the RTC decision, holding that petitioner Bonaobra’s conviction as coordinator fell within the scope of the maintenance/operation charge and gave credence to the police testimony.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework
• Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution: No search or seizure without a valid judicial warrant based on probable cause, save for limited exceptions.
• Art. III, Sec. 3(2), 1987 Constitution: Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional guarantees is inadmissible.
• Rule 113, Sec. 5, Rules of Court: Defines circumstances for lawful warrantless arrest, including in flagrante delicto, which requires overt acts witnessed by the arresting officer.
Trial Court Findings
The RTC credited police officers’ testimonies that they witnessed petitioners in the act of collating bets and counting money inside Bonaobra’s compound, thus satisfying flagrante delicto, and held the seized items as gambling paraphernalia establishing the corpus delicti.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA:
• Rejected Bonaobra’s due process claim that he was convicted of a crime different from his charge, reasoning that the higher offense of maintenance includes coordination.
• Favored police officers’ accounts over petitioners’ denial and upheld the in flagrante delicto arrest and the admissibility of evidence.
Issue Presented
Whether the warrantless entry, arrest, and seizure violated petitioners’ constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, rendering the evidence inadmissible and their convictions unsustainable.
Analysis: Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
The Supreme Court held that warrantless entry into Bonaobra’s private compound without judicial authorization contravened Art. III, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution. No exception justified the search; the officers acted solely on an anonymous tip.
Analysis: Warrantless Arrest and In Flagrante Delicto
Under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a), an in flagrante delicto arrest requires (1) an overt criminal act and (2) personal observation by officers. Here:
• Distance of 15–20 meters behind a 5'7"–5'9" bamboo fence with narrow slats made it impossible to reliably observe overt gambling acts.
• Officers admitted they could not read the contents of the papelitos or clearly identify paraphernalia from that vantage point.
• Petitioners’ testimonies, corroborated by family members, showed Bonaobra was answering a cellphone and Villamor was repaying a debt—no overt crime—when officers forcibly entered.
Analysi
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 234818)
Procedural History
- Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails:
• RTC Branch 43, Virac, Catanduanes Judgment of October 25, 2006 in Criminal Case Nos. 3463 and 3464, convicting petitioners for violations of PD 1602 as amended by RA 9287.
• CA Decision of June 13, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR No. 30457, which affirmed the RTC judgment. - Petitioners Villamor and Bonaobra seek acquittal on grounds of unreasonable search and seizure and lack of proof of overt criminal acts.
Factual Antecedents
- June 17, 2005: Both petitioners were charged in Virac, Catanduanes:
• Villamor as “collector” under Section 3(c), RA 9287, for soliciting and collecting bets in an illegal numbers game “lotteng” with gambling paraphernalia.
• Bonaobra as “maintainer/operator” under Section 3(d), RA 9287, for operating “lotteng” and possessing paraphernalia and P1,500 in bets. - Informations were amended on September 13, 2005 to clarify roles: Villamor as collector; Bonaobra as manager/operator.
- Both pleaded not guilty at arraignment; a joint trial on the merits followed.
Prosecution’s Version
- On June 17, 2005 at around 9:00 a.m., PD Peñaflor received an unnamed informant’s tip of an ongoing “lotteng” operation at Bonaobra’s house.
- A police team parked outside the compound (bamboo slat fence, 5′7″–5′9″ high) some 15–20 meters away, purportedly saw petitioners “revising” bets and counting money through two-inch gaps.
- Officers entered without warrant, introduced themselves, confiscated P1,500, “papelitos,” a c