Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DE GRACIA 233 SCRA 716 (1994) No search warrant was secured by the raiding team because,
according to them, at that time there was so much disorder
Facts: The incidents involved in this case took place at the considering that the nearby Camp Aguinaldo was being
height of the coup d’etat staged in December, 1989 by ultra- mopped up by the rebel forces and there was simultaneous
rightist elements headed by the Reform the Armed Forces firing within the vicinity of the Eurocar office, aside from the
Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP) against fact that the courts were consequently closed. The group was
the Government. able to confirm later that the owner of Eurocar office is a
certain Mr. Gutierrez and that appellant is supposedly a “boy”
Version of the Prosecution therein.
In the early morning of December 1, 1989, Maj. Efren Soria of Version of the Defense
the Intelligence Division, National Capital Region Defense On November 30, 1989, he was in Antipolo to help in the
Command, was conducting a surveillance of the Eurocar Sales birthday party of Col. Matillano. He denies that he was at the
Office located at Epifanio de los Santos Avenue in Quezon Eurocar Sales Office on December 1, 1989. Second, he
City, together with his team. The surveillance, which actually contends that when the raiding team arrived at the Eurocar
started on the night of November 30, 1989 at around 10:00 Sales Office on December 5, 1989, he was inside his house, a
P.M., was conducted pursuant to an intelligence report small nipa hut which is adjacent to the building.
received by the division that said establishment was being
occupied by elements of the RAM-SFP as a communication According to him, he was tasked to guard the office of Col.
command post. Sgt. Crispin Sagario, the driver of the car, Matillano which is located at the right side of the building. He
parked the vehicle around ten to fifteen meters away from the denies, however, that he was inside the room of Col. Matillano
Eurocar building, had earlier alighted from the car to conduct when the raiding team barged in and that he had explosives in
his surveillance on foot. his possession. He testified that when the military raided the
office, he was ordered to get out of his house and made to lie
A crowd was then gathered near the Eurocar office watching on the ground face down, together with “Obet” and “Dong”
the on-going bombardment near Camp Aguinaldo. After a who were janitors of the building. He avers that he does not
while, a group of five men disengaged themselves from the know anything about the explosives and insists that when they
crowd and walked towards the car of the surveillance team. At were asked to stand up, the explosives were already there.
that moment, Maj. Soria, who was then seated in front, saw
the approaching group and immediately ordered Sgt. Sagario Appellant stated that he visited Col. Matillano in 1987 at the
to start the car and leave the area. As they passed by the stockade of the Philippine Constabulary-Integrated National
group, then only six meters away, the latter pointed to them, Police (PC-INP), and that he knew Matillano was detained
drew their guns and fired at the team, which attack resulted in because of the latter’s involvement in the 1987 coup d’etat. In
the wounding of Sgt. Sagario on the right thigh. Nobody in July, 1989, appellant again went to see Matillano because he
the surveillance team was able to retaliate because they had no job. Col. Matillano then told him that he could stay in
sought cover inside the car and they were afraid that civilians the PC-INP stockade and do the marketing for them. From
or bystanders might be caught in the cross-fire. that time until his arrest at the Eurocar office, appellant
As a consequence, at around 6:30 A.M. of December 5, 1989, a worked for Matillano.
searching team raided the Eurocar Sales Office. They were
able to find and confiscate the ff; De Gracia believes that the prosecution witnesses were moved
Five (5) bundles of C-4 or dynamites to testify against him because “bata raw ako ni Col. Matillano
Six (6) cartoons of M-16 ammunition at 20 each eh may atraso daw sa kanila si Col. Matillano kaya sabi nila ito
One hundred (100) bottles of MOLOTOV bombs na lang bata niya ang ipitin natin.”
Trial Court Judgement
These were located and confiscated from the inside of one of Trial court acquitted appellant Rolando de Gracia of
the rooms belonging to a certain Col. Matillano which is attempted homicide, but found him guilty beyond reasonable
located at the right portion of the building. Sgt. Oscar Obenia, doubt of the offense of illegal possession of firearms in
the first one to enter the Eurocar building, saw appellant De furtherance of rebellion and sentenced him to serve the
Gracia inside the office of Col. Matillano, holding a C-4 and penalty of reclusion perpetua.
suspiciously peeping through a door. De Gracia was the only
person then present inside the room. Moreover, it made a recommendation that “in as much as
Rolando de Gracia appears to be merely executing or obeying
As a result of the raid, the team arrested appellant, as well as orders and pursuant to the spirit contained in the 2nd
Soprieso Verbo and Roberto Jimena who were janitors at the paragraph of Art. 135, R.P.C., the court recommends that
Eurocar building. They were then made to sign an inventory, Rolando de Gracia be extended executive clemency after
written in Tagalog, of the explosives and ammunition serving a jail term of five (5) years of good behavior.”
confiscated by the raiding team. Appelant’s Contention
No search warrant: Reason; He cannot be held guilty of illegal possession of firearms
because he did not have either physical or constructive
Constitutional Mandate as a General Rule I. Whether or not intent to possess is an essential element of the
Article III, Section 2. The right of the people to be secure offense punishable under presidential decree no. 1866 and, if so,
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against whether appellant de Gracia did intend to illegally possess
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and firearms and ammunition.
for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined Ii. Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure in this
personally by the judge after examination under oath or case.
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be Iii. Whether or not appellant’s possession of the firearms,
searched and the persons or things to be seized. explosives and ammunition seized and recovered from him was
Valid Warrantless Search; Exception: for the purpose
1. The owner of the premises waives his right against And in furtherance of rebellion.
such incursion;
Discussion Proper:
2. The search is incidental to a lawful arrest;
I. The rule is that ownership is not an essential element of
3. It is made on vessels or aircrafts for violations of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What the
customs laws;
law requires is merely possession which includes not only
4. It is made on automobiles for the purpose of actual physical possession but also constructive possession
preventing violations of smuggling or immigration or the subjection of the thing to one’s control and
laws;
management.
5. It involves prohibited articles in plain view; or
Intent Immaterial In Crimes Malum Prohibitum Punished
6. In cases of inspection of buildings and other
By Special Laws
premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and
The offense of illegal possession of firearms is a malum
building regulations, a search may be validly made
prohibitum punished by a special law. In which, case good
even without a search warrant.
faith and absence of criminal intent are NOT valid defenses.
Presidential Decree No. 1866 When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent
SECTION 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the
Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the
Instruments Used or intended to be Used in the special law. Intent to commit the crime and intent to
Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition.—The penalty perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A person may not
of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion have consciously intended to commit a crime but he did
perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of
unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or things, the crime itself. In the first (intent to commit the crime),
possess any firearms, part of firearms, ammunition or there must be criminal intent; in the second (intent to
machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used perpetrate the act) it is enough that the prohibited act is done
in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition. freely and consciously.
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, the penalty of death shall be imposed. In the case: A distinction should be made between criminal
If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of, or intent and intent to possess. While mere possession, without
incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion, criminal intent, is sufficient to convict a person for illegal
insurrection or subversion, the penalty of death shall be possession of a firearm, it must still be shown that there
imposed. was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the part
of the accused. Such intent to possess is, however, without
Reason Behind PD No. 1866 regard to any other criminal or felonious intent which the
Presidential Decree No. 1866 was passed because of an accused may have harbored in possessing the firearm.
upsurge of crimes vitally affecting public order and safety due
to the proliferation of illegally possessed and manufactured
The nature and quantity of the items indicate that the reports
received by the military that the Eurocar Sales Building was
being used by the rebels was not without basis. Those items
are clearly not for one’s personal defense. They are for
offensive operations.