CRIM PRO – Warrantless Arrest (when justified) In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof the

ng under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be
[21] Cadua v. CA proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7

312 SCRA 703 | August 19, 1999 | Quisumbing Rule 126 of the Rules of Court:

PETITIONER: Edwin Cadua “Sec. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest.–A person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
RESPONDENTS: CA and People of the Philippines commission of an offense, without a search warrant.”
SUMMARY: DOCTRINE:
A holdup incident took place in North Fairview Quezon City where the alleged A lawful arrest may be made either while a crime is actually being committed, or soon
holduppers fled. Cadua was one of the suspected holduppers as he matched the after its commission. The right to search includes in these instances that of
description as told by the complainants. When the policemen were approaching him searching the person of one who is arrested, in order to find and seize things
and another suspect, the policeman noticed that Cadua was pulling something tucked connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means for its commission.
in at the right side of his waist. The policeman then frisked Cadua and found in his
possession a paltik revolver, which later turned out to be unlicensed.

During the investigation for their robbery case, the complainants manifested their FACTS:
doubts as to the identity of Padua and his companion, hence only an information for
Illegal Possession of Firearms was filed. The trial court and the CA then found Cadua 1) January 2, 1992: PO3 Joselito Burdeos and companions received a radio dispatch
guilty for this offense. requesting them to proceed to Lot 10, Block 14, Alden Street, North Fairview. Said
dispatch was based on a report concerning an alleged holdup of complainants
In this petition, Cadua is assailing his conviction and questions the legality of his Lourdes Bulos and her daughter Bernadette, who were in need of police assistance.
arrest since in his view, the probable cause of his arrest had been totally negated as
the complainants disclaimed his identity as holdupper. The SC ruled that Cadua’s - At said address, police officers found both complainants who stated that
right to be protected from any unlawful warrantless arrest has not been violated the alleged holduppers had just fled.
as there was sufficient reason to justify a warrantless arrest of petitioner for 2) As the policemen were patrolling around the area, the police officers noticed two
illegal possession of firearms because when the policeman was approaching (2) men walking alongside the street who fit the description of the holduppers as told
him, Cadua was on the act of drawing out his “paltik– revolver”.
by the complainants. The police officers slowed down to a stop, alighted from the
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE: vehicle, and called out to the suspects.

Rule 113 of the Rules of Court: - As Burdeos was approaching the suspects, he noticed that petitioner
Cadua was about to pull something which was tucked at the right side of his
“Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.– A peace officer or a private person waist. Burdeos promptly pointed his firearm at Cadua and warned him not to
may, without a warrant, arrest a person: move.

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually - He then frisked Cadua and found in his possession a .38 caliber
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; “paltik– revolver. PO3 Reynoso Bacnat then apprehended Cadua’s companion, who
was later identified as Joselito Aguilar. In Aguilar’s possession was found a fan knife.
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; 3) Verification with the Firearms and Explosives Unit revealed that petitioner-
accused Edwin Cadua is not a valid license holder of a .38 caliber “paltik–
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal revolver.
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one 4) Although originally the case was for investigation of Robbery, Violation of PD 1866
confinement to another. (Illegal Possession of Firearms) and Violation of PD 5121 (Concealment of a Deadly
Weapon), assistant City Prosecutor Edgaro Paragua by resolution dated January 6,
1992, found only the case for Illegal Possession of Firearms warranting the
filing of an Information.
 - According to Prosecutor Paragua, during the investigation for robbery, unlicensed firearm, which petitioner attempted to draw out, by itself, amounts to
complainants manifested their doubts as to the identity of the respondents, committing an offense in the presence of a peace officer (Hence, 5 (a) of Rule 113
hence he set this matter for further investigation. applies).

5) On arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued,  The fact that the robbery case was never brought to trial does not mean that the
resulting in his conviction. legality of the arrest was tainted, for such arrest does not depend upon the
indubitable existence of the crime
6) Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial  The fact that the victims of the reported robbery failed to pursue a formal complaint
court. is not decisive in this case. What is material is that the officers acted in
- It ruled that the warrantless arrest of petitioner was based on probable response to the events which had just transpired and called for the
cause and that the police officers had personal knowledge of the fact which led to his appropriate police response.
arrest  Complainants refraining from identifying the accused during the examination
by the police regarding the robbery is not determinative of the resolution of the
7) Hence this petition for certiorari filed by Cadua before SC, where he assigned the present case because the case now is for the illegal possession of firearms,
following errors: and not for the robbery.
 Given the circumstances in this case, the affirmed the finding that the warrantless
a) CA erred in ruling that the ‘paltik’ was recovered in an incidental arrest of petitioner is lawful.
search during a warrantless arrest made by the police. He adds that since the
 It also ruled that the incidental search and subsequent seizure of the
complainants later on disclaimed petitioner’s identity as the holdupper and that no unlicensed firearm in question is likewise lawful and valid pursuant to Section 12,
case of robbery was filed against him, any probable cause or personal knowledge
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
thereof, alleged by the arresting officers, had been totally negated.
- A lawful arrest may be made either while a crime is actually being
b) CA erred in believing the testimony of the police officers when it is clear committed, or soon after its commission. The right to search includes
that the apprehension of the accused was illegal and that the filing of the in these instances that of searching the person of one who is
charges for illegal possession of firearms is but an afterthought since the private arrested, in order to find and seize things connected with the crime
complainant admitted that the accused Cadua was not the holdupper. as its fruits or as the means for its commission.
- In the case at bar, when petitioner was searched contemporaneously
ISSUES: with the arrest, the “paltik– was found in his possession, and seized.
Such seizure cannot be considered unlawful nor unreasonable.
1) Whether or not his right to be protected from any unlawful warrantless arrest
has been violated – NO, there was sufficient reason to justify a warrantless arrest of
petitioner for illegal possession of firearms. 2) Whether or not petitioner is liable for the offense of illegal possession of
firearms? - NO
 The findings of the trial court, accepted by the appellate court, show the pertinence
of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5 of Rule 113 (see provision).  Two elements must be proved for illegal possession of firearms:
 Through police dispatch to the scene of a crime report and in the presence of
complainants, it was ascertained that a robbery had just been committed, and the (a) positively, the existence of the subject firearm,
arresting officers had personal knowledge that petitioner was directly implicated as (b) negatively, the fact that the accused did not have a license or permit to
a suspect. possess the same.
- ‘Personal knowledge of facts,’ in arrests without warrant must be based
 In the case at bar, these elements were proven:
upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion. Element 1: The testimony of witnesses on record affirms that the “paltik–
revolver was taken from the person of petitioner at the time he was arrested.
- In the case at bar, the complainants of the robbery incident identified
Cadua as a logical suspect in the offense just committed when he was spotted in the Element 2: SPO1 Cesar Gabitan, of the Firearms and Explosive Unit,
vicinity (Hence, Sec 5 (b) of Rule 113 applies). testified without contradiction that petitioner had no license or permit to
possess the gun.
- Moreover, at that time that PO3 Burdeos called out to petitioner, the latter
was on the act of drawing out his “paltik– revolver”. Actual possession of an
 The Court also rejected petitioner’s claim that since he was found negative for gun RELEASED immediately, unless he is being held for any other lawful
powder burns, he should be held innocent and acquitted of the charge, cause.
considering that the “paltik– at the time of its confiscation was positive for gun
powder residue”.
- The SC reiterated CA’s holding that: Whether or not accused-
appellant fired the gun in question does not erase his offense of
illegally possessing the said gun. Besides, being negative of
gunpowder burns does not necessarily mean that accused-
appellant has not fired the gun.

3) Whether or not the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is proper – NO

 At the time that he was convicted, the penalty for Illegal Possession of Firearms
under Presidential Decree 1866 was reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua.
- The trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, imposed on petitioner
the penalty of 12 years, 5 months and 10 days of reclusion temporal as
minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as
maximum.
 With the passage of RA 8294 on June 6, 1997, PD. 1866 have been amended:
the penalty for simple illegal possession of a low-powered firearm, such as “paltik,–
has been reduced to prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of
not less than fifteen thousand pesos
- Since the provision of R.A. 8294 is favorable to petitioner, it should have
a retroactive effect, pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.
 The Court also applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law in this case, citing
People v Martin Simon.
- “Although Illegal Possession of Firearms is considered a special law,
the penalty provided is taken from the range of penalties in the Revised
Penal Code, thus, in relation to Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, it is covered by the first clause of said section.”
 An additional fine was also imposed by the Court, which if unpaid will subject the
convict to subsidiary imprisonment, pursuant to Art. 39 of the RPC.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with the
MODIFICATION:
- that petitioner is hereby SENTENCED to 2 years, 4 months, and 1
day of prision correccional medium as minimum, to 5 years, 4
months, and 20 days of prision correccional maximum as
maximum, there being no aggravating and mitigating circumstances,
- plus a fine of P15,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment should
petitioner fail to pay.
- However, since petitioner has already served more than seven (7)
years, (5) months in prison, which is now beyond the maximum
principal penalty imposed at present for his offense, even if a
subsidiary penalty for unpaid fine is included, he is hereby ordered