REPUBLIC OF THE PI-IILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated July 26, 2023 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 262626 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-

appellee, v. NHELL BOY MODAR y MORIONES a.k.a. "Nhell Boy,"
Accused-appellant). - This Court resolves the Appeal I filed by Nhell Boy 2
Modar y Moriones (Modar), assailing the Court of Appeals Decision3
affirming the Regional Trial Court's Judgment4 finding accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of an explm;ive under
Presidential Decree No. 1866, Section 3, as amended by Republic Act No.
9516.5

The Information reads:

Rollo, p. 3.
Nhel Boy in some parts of the rollo.
Id. at p. 8-21. The June 30, 202 1 Decision in CA-G.R. CR I-I C No. 12602 was penned by Assoc iate
Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justice
Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo. and Associate Justice Bonifacio S. Pascua of th e Fourth Division, Court
of Appeals, Manila.
Id. at p. 23-26. The September 24, 20 18 Decision, docketed as Criminal Case No. 16-17803-MK, was
penned by Presiding Judge Armando C. Velasco of Branch 263, Regional Trial Court, Marikina City.
SECTION 3. Unlawful Manufactur e, Sales, Acquisition, Disposition, Importation or Possession of an
Explosive or Incendiary Device. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any
person who shall willfu lly and un lawfully manufacture, assemble, dea l in, acquire, dispose, import or
possess any explosive or incendiary device, with knowledge of its existence and its explosive or
incendiary character, where the explosive or incendiary device is capable of producing destructive
effect on contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any person, including but not limited to, hand
grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), 'pillbox bomb' , ' mo lotov cocktail bomb', 'fire bomb', and other similar
explosive and incendiary devices.
Provided, That mere possession of any explosive or incendiary de vice shall be prima f acie evidence
that the person had knowledge of the existence and the explosive o r incendiary character of the device.
Provided, however, That a temporary, incidental, casual, harmless, or transient possession or control of
any explosive or incendiary device. w ithout the knowledge of its existence or its explosive or
incendiary character, shall not be a violation of this Section.
Provided, further, That the temporary, incidental, casual, harmless, or transie nt possession or control
of any explosive or incendiary device for the sole purpose of surrenderi ng it to the proper authorities
shall not be a violation of this Section.
Provided, finally, That in add ition to the instances provided in the two (2) immediately preceding
paragraphs, the courts may determine the absence of the intent to possess, otherwise referred to
as 'animus possidendi, ' in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case and the
application of other pertinent laws, amon g other things, A1ticles I I and 12 of the Revised Penal Code.
as amended.

A(88)URES(a) - more -
 Resolution 2 G.R. No. 262626

That on or about the 17th day of October 20 16, in City of Marikina,

Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly
have in his possession, direct custody and control one (I) fragmentation
hand grenade at the area of Spain Street, Barangay Concepcion Uno, this
city, said respondent failing to present and secure the necessary license and
permit from the proper authorities for said grenade.

Contrary to law. 6

Upon arraignment, Modar pleaded not guilty to the charge.7 During

pretrial, the parties stipulated on Modar's identity as the one who was named
in the Information and the territori al jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Cou1i
in this case.8 After which, the trial proceeded.

Both the prosecution and defense gave their respective narrations of

the facts.

Based on prosecution evidence, Senior Pol ice Office I Deogracias

Basang (SPO 1 Basang), was assigned to the Intelligence Unit of Marikina
Police Station as part of the team conducting an Anti-C riminality Operation
at Camacho Compound, Balubad, Barangay Nangka, Marikina City. 9 On
October 17, 2016, SPO 1 Basang received a phone call from a confidential
informant that Modar was walking shirtless and carrying a suspected hand
grenade along Spain Street, Green.heights Subdivision, Concepcion Uno,
Marikina City. 10 The informant also claimed that he saw Modar place the
hand grenade inside his sling bag. 11 SPO 1 Basang testified that he did not
record his conversation with the confidential informant, and that the cellular
phone used in the call was already lost. 12

When SPO 1 Basang reported th is to the Chief of the Intelligence Unit,

SPO 1 Basang, Police Officer 3 Jayson Rael (P03 Rael), and Police Officer 1
Jonathan Ilao (POI Ilao) were instructed to verify the information. 13 They
immediately proceeded to Spain Street and arrived at around 6:00 p.m. 14
When they arrived, they saw Modar and observed that he fitted the
description given by the confidential informant. 15 The police officers then
accosted Modar and informed him that he v io lated Mari kina City Ordinance
No. 145, series of 2006, by walking shirtless in a public place. 16

Rollo, p. 23
Id
Id.
9
Id. at 9.
io CA mllo, p. 45.
11 Id.
12 Id al 46.
1.1 Rollo. p. 9.
14 Id.
is Id
16
ld.at9- I0.

A(88)URES(a) - more -
 Resolution 3 G. R. No. 262626

SPO 1 Basang asked Modar regarding the contents of hi s sling bag, but
Modar did not respond. He then asked Modar to show the contents of his
bag, 17 which contained the hand grenade. SPOl Basang asked Modar to
show proof of his authority to possess or carry an explosive, but Modar
could not show any document to prove his authority. 18

SPO 1 Basang, PO3 Rael, and PO 1 Ilao then arrested Modar and
informed him of his constitutional rights. 19 They also marked the seized
grenade as "NMM-2 10/17/15," and the black sling bag as "NMM-1
I 0/17/16." 20 After this, Moclar and the seized pieces of evidence were
photographed for proper documentation. 21 Modar was taken to the hospital
for a check-up. 22

After the check-up, Modar was brought to the Marikina City Pol ice
Station and was issued an Ordinance Violation Receipt by PO3 Jessie E leria
for the M arikina C ity Ordinance No. 145 violation. 23 The seized hand
grenade was also turned over by SPO 1 Basang to the Explosive Ordnance
Division of the Eastern Police District for its verification and ballistic
examination.24 The examination reveals that the grenade contains a powdery
substance marked as "NMM-2A 10/17/16." 25

The police officers prepared several requests to further examine the

seized grenade: ( I) a req uest fo r verification to the Firearms and Explosive
Office at Camp Crame to determine whether Modar is a licensed explosive
holder; (2) a request for identification and explosive test to the Explosive
Ordnance Division of the Eastern Police District, to determine the explosive
ingredients of the grenade; and (3) a request for chemical examination, to
assess the composition of the powdery substance extracted from the hand
grenacle. 2c,

The Firearms and Explosives Office issued a certification stating that

Modar had not been issued any permit to "possess or transport military
ordnance, or any explosive or explosive ingredients." 27 The Di strict
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team of the Eastern Police District also issued
a Technical Evaluation Report, stating that the hand grenade was found to be
live or serviceable due to the presence of the three elements of a hand
grenade, which are the body, fuse assembly, and explosive fi ller.28 The

17
CA rollo, p. 45.
18
Rollo, p. I 0.
1'> Id.
20 Id.
21
CA rollo, p. 45.
22
Rollo, p. I 0.
23 Id.
24
CA rollo, p. 45.
25 Rollo, p. I 0.
26 Id.
27
Rollo, p. 11 ; CA rollo, p. 45 .
28
CA rullo, p. 45 .

A(88) URES( a) - more -

 Resolution 4 GR. No. 262626

Report also states that the grenade "was capable of exploding with an
effective casualty radius of 15 meters."29

Modar denied all the charges made against him. According to him, on
October 17, 2016, he was repairing a motorcycle in front of his house at No.
24 Finland Street, Greenheights Subdivision, Marikina City when the police
officers an-ived and made him board a white vehicle. 30 He was then
handcuffed. The police officers told Modar that they were looking for
someone and Modar replied that he does not know the person that they were
referring to. Modar and the police officers then went around Malanday,
Marikina City, and continued to look for the person. 31 When they failed to
find the person, they drove to the parking lot of the Criminal Investigation
Division and parked there. The police officers alighted from the vehicle and
left Modar inside. 32

After a few hours, the police officers came back. They transferred
Modar to another vehicle which proceeded to Spain Street.33 When they
arrived at Spain Street, Modar was asked to take off his clothes. The police
officers then brought a black sling bag containing a grenade. 34 They also
took pictures of Modar. After this, they transported him back to the police
station. 35

Meanwhile, Modar was acquitted of the charge of violating City

Ordinance No. 145, series of 2006 in an Order issued by Branch 95,
Regional Trial Court, Marikina City. The Regional Trial Court acquitted
Modar based on the findings that his right to procedural due process was
violated. 36

In a September 24, 2018 Decision, 37 the Regional Trial Court found

Modar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of an explosive
under Presidential Decree No. 1866, Section 3, as amended by Republic Act
No. 9516. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, above premises considered, this court finds

accused NHEL BOY MODAR y MORIONES a.k.a. "Nhell Boy"
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of an explosive as
defined an[ d) penalized under Sec. 3. of PD I 966 as amended by Sec. 1 of
RA 9516 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
TWENTY (20) YEARS TO RECLUSION PERPETUA.

29
Rollo, p, 11.
Jo Id.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id.
Js Id.
Ju Id.
37 CA rollo, pp. 44-47.

A(88)URES(a) - more -
 Resolution 5 GR. No. 262626

SO ORDERED. 38

The trial court found that the seized hand grenade was lawfully
obtained since the search was-preceded by Modar's valid arrest for Marikina
City Ordinance No. 145, series of 2006 violation. It also ruled that the arrest
leading to the search of the sling bag enjoys the presumption of regularity in
the performance of an official function.39 Moreover, the prosecution was
able to establish that M.o dar has not been issued a permit or license to
possess or transport military ordnance or explosive ingredients based on the
avai lable records. The certification from the District Explosive Ordinance
Disposal Team also showed that the seized hand grenade is serviceable.40

Modar then filed a Notice of Appeal dated November 20, 2018. 41 In a

November 26, 2018 Order, the Regional Trial Court gave due course to his
Notice of Appeal and elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. 42

In his Appellant's Brief, Modar mainly argued that the seized hand
grenade is inadmissible in evidence due to the unlawful arrest which
preceded the search, violating his right against unreasonable searches and
seizures. 43

In its June 30, 2021 Decision,44 the Court of Appeals dismissed

Modar's appeal and upheld the trial court's findings. The d ispositive portion
of the Court of Appeals' Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. T he Decision dated 24

September 2018 of Branch 263 of the Regional Trial Court, Marikina City,
in Criminal Case No. 16-17803-MK, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.45

In upholding the findings of the trial court, the Court of Appeals ruled
that Modar was placed under arrest by the police officers because he
violated the city ordinance.46 The police officers had a clear intention of
taking him into custody since it was only at the police station that he was
issued the Ordinance Violation Receipt. 47 Moreover, it found that the
subsequent search conducted by police officers on Modar's person and
belongings is "a reasonable search of the area within the suspect's immediate

3R /d. at47.
39
Id. at 46-47.
4o Id
41
CA rollo, p. 11.
42
Id. atp. 13.
43
Id. at J I.
44
Rollo, pp. 8- 21 .
45
Id at p. 2 1.
46
Rollo, p. 16.
41 Id.

A(88)URES(a) - more -
 Reso lution 6 G.R. No. 262626

48
control, as an incident to his lawful warrantless arrest."

Thus, on July 28, 202 1, Modar filed a Noti ce of Appeal49 before the
Court of Appeals, which it gave due course to in its April 27, 2022
Reso lution. 50 In compliance, the Court of Appeals elevated the case records
to this Court.

In a January 18, 2023 Resolution, this Court noted the records

forwarded by the Court of Appeals and informed the parties that they may
fil e suppl emental briefs simultaneously, if they so desire, within 30 days
from notice.51

On March 21, 2023, Modar, through the Public Attorney's Office,

manifested that he will no longer file a supplemental brief. 52 A similar
Manifestation was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General on beha lf of
plaintiff-appellee on Febru ary 22, 2023 .53

The issue for this Court's resolution is whether accused-appellant

Nhell Boy Modar y Moriones is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
possession of an explosive. Corollary to this issue is whether the search
which y ielded the seized hand grenade is lawful.

We acquit.

After an evaluation of the case records, this Court resolves to reverse

the conviction of accused-appellant and grant the appeal. Contrary to the
Court of Appeals' findings, there was no lawful search incidental to arrest
since there was no lawful arrest that preceded the search and seizure of
accused-appellant's persona l belongings. Since accused-appellant's right
against unreasonable searches and seizures has been violated, the seized
hand grenade is inadmissible as evidence.

"The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in

their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures." 54 It is an ancient right that is zealously safeguarded. "Any
evidence obtained in v iolation of said right shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding." 55 While it is tru e that the power to search and
seize may at times be necessary to public welfare, the exercise of this power

48
Id. at 18.
19
' Id. at J.
50
Id. at 6.
51
Id. at 27.
52 Id. at 34 .
5, Id. at 29- 30.
54
Valdez v. People. 563 Phil. 934. 94 1 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, Second Di vis ion].
55 Id.

A(88)URES(a) - more -
 Resolution 7 G.R. No. 262626

56
should sti 11 not contravene the constitutional rights of the citizens.

F irst, there was no valid arrest of the accused-appellant.

In P icardal v. People, 57 this Cou1t emphasized that while the factual

findings of the tria l court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals are generally
final and conclusive to this Court, there are also exceptions to this rule :

At the o utset, it is well to emphasize that the factual fi ndings of the

CA, affi rming that of the trial court, are generally final and conclusive o n
the Court. The foregoing rule, however, is subject to the fol lowing
exceptio ns:

( ! ) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises

or conjectures;
(2) tbe inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible;
(3) there is grave abuse of discretion;
(4) the judgment is based o n a misapprehension of facts;
(5) the fi ndings o f fact are conflicting;
(6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the
factual findings are based;
(7) the fi ndings of absence of fact are contradicted by the
presence of evidence on record;
(8) the find ings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial
court;
(9) the CA man(festly overlooked certain relevant and
undisputed.facts that, ifproperly considered, would justify a
d(fferent conclusion;
( 10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the
case; and
(11 ) s uch fi ndings are contrary to the adm issio ns o f bo th
parti es.

In the present case, the ninth exception applies. The CA manifestly

overlooked the undisputed facts that: ( I) the firearm subject of this case
was seized from P icardal after he was frisked by the police offi cers for
allegedly urinating in a public place; and (2) the aforementioned case for
" urinating in a public place" fil ed against Picardal was subsequently
d ismissed by the Metro politan Trial Court of Manila. 58 (Citatio ns o mitted)

Similarly, the ninth exception mentioned in Picarda f applies in this

case. The Court of A ppeals manifestly overl ooked the facts that the: ( I )
police officers approached and focused on accused-appellant based on the
tip that he was allegedly carrying a hand grenade; and (2) accused-
appellant was arrested only after the police offi cers fo und and seized the
hand grenade.

56 Id.
57
854 Ph il. 575 (20 19) [Per .I. Caguioa, Second Div ision].
58 Picardo! v. People, 854 Phil. 575, 581 - 582 (20 19) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Divis io n].

A(88) URES(a) - more -

 Resolution 8 G.R. No. 262626

According to SPOl Basang's testimony, accused-appellant was

identified and approached by the pol ice officers based on the tip given by the
confidential informant that there was a person walking shirtless along Spain
Street carrying a suspected hand grenade. 59 They intentionally went to Spain
Street because of that tip and when they arrived, they approached and
accosted accused-appel !ant for the supposed ordinance violation:

PROSECUTOR:
Q. Whal happened qfier you arrived in the location or in the area?
A. When we arrived in the area Sil~ we saw a male person filled to
[sic] the description given by our C.I. Sil:

Q. What was the description again given to you by your confidential

il1/or111ant?
A. Tbe description Sir were without an upper garment, carrying a
sling hag colored black, and wearing.Jersey shorts colored green.

Q. What did you do next c!fier this?

A. Ajier that Sir we accosted the suspect for violation of City
Ordinance Si,:

Q. City Ordinance.for what?

A. Without upper garment Sil:

Q. What proof do you have that indeed al that time that person was
not wearing an upper garment?
A. The photographs S i,~

ATTY. JEREMAE R. NADONGA

Q. Okay let'.\· clar(/y. You mentioned during your direct testimony
that you went to the area of Spain Greenheights Subdivision,
Concepcion I, correct?
A. Yes lvfa 'am.

Q. And then you chance [sic] upon this person ·without any upper
garment, correct?
A. Yes Ma 'am [sic].

Q. No. What you accosted him for was violation o_/City Ordinance,
co/"/'ect?
A. Yes Ma 'am [sic].

Q. That was the initial violation?

A. Yes Ma 'am. 60 (Emphasis supplied)

After the police officers accosted him, the police officers asked
accused-appellant to open the bag. SPO 1 Basang admitted in his testimony
that he asked the accused-appellant to reveal the contents of his bag because
of the confidential informant's information that accused-appellant 1s

59 Rollo. pp. 15-16. citing T SN , SPOI Deogracias Basang, Septembe r 5, 201 7, pp. 6- 8.
r.o Id.

A(88)URES(a) - more -
 Resolution 9 G.R. No. 262626

carrying a hand grenade.61

PROSECUTOR LIM:
Q. Afier you accosted the accused for not-for having no upper
garment. what happ ened next?
A. After that Sir I instructed him and I asked him, what is the content
[sic] <~/his body bag Sil:

Q. Why did you ask him the contents ofthe body bag?
A. Because the i11formant reported to us that alias 'Nhell Boy ' was
then carrying a su,\ pected hand grenade.

Q. After you requested this person or asked this person the contents
o.fthe bag, what happened next?
A. The suspect- when I asked him what is the content, (sic) the
suspect was not responding to us Sir.

Q. After that- what happened next afier that person did not respond
to your query?
A. I instructed him to open his bag Si1:

Q. What happened next ajier that?

A. The suspect followed my instruction. Then when he opened, I
saw the swpected hand grenade inside his bag with the use c~f
myjlashlight Si,: 62

It was only after accused-appellant was supposedly unable to show

any authority to carry the hand grenade that he was arrested and informed of
his constitutional rights. 63 This sequence of events was confirmed by
plaintiff-appellee in its narration of facts in the Appellee's Brief. 64 Plaintiff-
appellee narrated that after accused-appellant fai led to show proof of his
authority to carry an explosive, the police officers arrested him: 65

6. Thus, SPOI Basang, PO3 Rael and POl llao immed iately
proceeded to Spain St. where they spotted a man, [later identified to be
herein appellant] fits the description of 1.he confidential agent. As
appellant was not then wearing upper garments in violation of a city
ordinance, the team accosted him. When asked about the contents of his
sl ing bag, appellant did not respond. Thus, SPO I Basang req uired
appellant to open his bag for inspection, to which, appellant obliged. With
the use of his flashlight, SPO 1 Basang inspected appellant's sling bag and
found a hand grenade inside. SPO I Basang then requested appellant to
show proof of his authority to carry explosive. Appellant, however, failed
to show such authority.

7. Due to appellant 's failure to show such proof,' the team arrested
appellant and co11fiscated _ji-om his possession the hand grenade, which
was marked with the marking "NM/v/-2 10/17/ 16. ··

<,I I d. at 18, citing TSN, SPO I Deogracias 13asang, September 5. 20 I 7. p. 7.

1,2 Id.
63
Id. at p. I 0.
c,.i CA rollo, p. 67.
G5 Id.

A(88)URES(a) - more -
 Resolution G.R. No. 262626

In Hamar v. Peaple,66 this Court found that there was no arrest that
preceded the search made by the police officer and civilian agent since
they did not arrest the accused but merely accosted him when they saw him
jaywalking. This Court also concluded in Hamar that based on the police
officer's testimony, the intent to arrest only came after the police officer
allegedly confiscated the illegal drugs. Afte r which, the accused was
informed of his constitutional rights and brought to the polic~ station:

C learly, no arrest preceded the search o n the person of the

petitioner. W hen Tan and Tangcoy a llegedly saw the petitio ner
j aywalking, they did not arrest hi m but accosted him and pointed to him
the right place for crossing. In fact, according to the RTC, Tan and
Tangcoy "immediately accosted him and told him to cross [at] the
designated area. "

Tan and Tangcoy did not intend to bring the petitioner under
custody or to restrain his liberty. This lack of intent to arrest him was
bo lstered by the fact that there was no criminal charge that was filed
against the petitioner for crossing a " no jaywalki ng" area.

From Tan's testimony, the intent to arrest the petitioner onl y came
a fter they a llegedly confiscated the shabu from the petitioner, for which
they informed him of his constitutional rights and brought him to the
police station. 67

The indispensabi lity of intent to arrest in a warrantless search

incidental to arrest is illustrated in Luz v. Peaple.68 This Court held that for
there to be valid arrest, there must be an intention to arrest the accused. In
Luz, the Court found that the shabu confiscated from the accused was
inadmissible as evidence since the police officer had no intent to arrest the
accused when he was flagged for a traffic violation:

First, there was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he was fl agged

clown for committing a traffic violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely
fo r this reason, arrested.

Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he o r she

may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. It is effected
by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that person's
voluntary submissio n to the custody of the o ne making the arrest. Neither
the application of actual force, manual touching of the body, or phys ical
restraint, nor a forma l declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that
there be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other,
and that there be an intent on the part of the o ther to submit, under the
belief and impressio n that submission is necessary.

66
768 Phil 195 (20 15) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
67
Homar v. People, 768 Phil 195. 207-208 (20 I 5) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
68 683 Phil 399 (20 12) [Per J. Sereno, Second Division].

A(88)URES(a) - more -
 Resolution 11 G.R. No. 262626

The U.S. Court in Berkemer thus ruled that, since the motorist
therein was only subjected to modest questions while still at the scene of
the traffic stop, he was not at that moment placed under custody (such that
he should have been apprised of his Miranda rights), and neither can
treatment of this sort be fairly characte rized as the functional equivalent of
a formal arrest. Similarly, neither can petitioner here be considered " under
69
arrest" at the time that his traffic citation was being made.

In the present case, when SPO I Basang al legedly saw accused-

appellant w ithout an upper garment, he accosted him for violating the city
ordinance instead of arresting him. It is also clear from SPO 1 Basang' s
testimony that there is no intent to arrest accused-appellant for the alleged
city ordinance violation because when they arrived at Spain Street and
looked for the accused, they intended to arrest him because of the
information that accused-appellant was carrying a grenade.

As ide from th is, plaintiff-appel lee admitted in the Appellee 's Brief
that the arrest happened after accused-appellant failed to show his authority
to carry an explosive. It is a rule in evidence that "allegations, statements, or
admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader." 70
Thus, these statements bind plaintiff-appe ll ee.

Without a valid arrest, the subsequent search and seizure made by the
police officers are based only on the tip made by the confidential informant.

This Court has previously ruled that searches based on solitary tips are
invalid. 71 The citizen's right against unreasonable searches and seizures wil l
be meaningless if this Court allows these on the basis of anonymous and
unverified tips. 72 Anyone can give false and fabricated information. 73
Unscrupulous law enforcement agents can justify entering a citizen's vehicle
or residence by merely claim ing that the tip was received even if no
information exists, or it is fabricated .74

Moreover, according to Marikina City Ordinance No. 145, series of

2006 that was allegedly v iolated by the accused-appellant, " moving about
(jog[ging], walk[ing], run[nning], or the li ke) topless" in public places is
penalized only by a fine of PHP 500.00.75

In Luz, this Court also stated that since a warrant of arrest is not
needed if the charge was for an offense penalized by a fine only, it follows

69
Luz v. People, 683 Phil 399, 406-40 9 (20 12) (Per J. Sereno, Second Divis ion].
70
Gvnzales-Suldana v. Spouses Niamatuli. 843 Phil. 787, 795 (2018) [Per J. J. Reyes, .Ir.. Th ird
Division].
71
Evardo v. People. G .R. No. 2343 17, May IO, 202 1 [Per J. Leonen, Third Di v is ion].
n Id.
1; Id.
14 Id.
75
Marikina City Ord inance No. 145, series o f 20 06, sec. 5 (cc), Appendi x " A."

A(88)URES(a) - more -
 Resolution 12 G.R. No. 262626

that neither can a warrantless arrest be made for that offense:

[t also appears that, acco rding to City Ordinance No. 98-012,

which was violated by petitioner, the fai lure to wear a crash hel met while
riding a motorcycle is penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules of Court,
a warrant of arrest need not be issued if the info rmation or charge was
filed for an offense penalized by a fi ne only. lt may be stated as a
coro llary that neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an
offense. 76

This Court similarly held in Picardal that there was no lawful arrest
that preceded the search since the accused's supposed v iolation was only
punishable by fine:

The san1e principle applies in the present case. There was

similarly no lawful arrest in this case as Picardal's violation, if at all
committed, was only punishable by fine.

In this connection, the Court. in Sindac v. People, reminds:

Section 2, Article lll of the l 987 Constitution

mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out
through or on the strength <~f'ajudicial warrant predicated
upon the existence of probable cause, absent which, such
search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the
meaning of said constitutional provision. To protect the
people _Fom unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3
(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that
evidence obtained _Fam unreasonable searches and
seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose
in any proceeding. In other words, evidence obtained and
confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches
and seizures are deemed tainted and shou ld be excluded fo r
being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.

One of the recognized exceptions to the need fo r a

warrant before a search may be affected is a search
incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the law
requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search
can be made-the process cannot be reversed.

Thus, as the fi rearm was discovered through an i Ilegal search, the

same cannot be used in any prosecution against him as mandated by
Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution. As there is no longer
any evidence against Picardal in this case, he must perforce be acq uitted. 77

While it is true that the ruling in Luz does not im ply that there can be
no arrest for a violation of an ordinance, it is c lear from the circumstances of
this case that accused-appellant was not arrested for violating the ordinance
before the search of his personal belong ings.
7
'' Luz v. People, 683 Phil 399, 409 (20 12) [Per J. Sereno, Second Divis ion].
77
Picardal v. People, 854 Phil. 575, 584-585(2019) [Per .I. Caguioa, Second Division].

A(88)URES(a) - more -
 Resolution 13 G.R. No. 262626

Second, since there was no valid arrest, the warrantless search that
resulted from the supposed arrest was likewise unlawfu l.

In Hamar, this Court ruled that the waiver of an illegal arrest only
affects the jurisdiction of the court over the person. It does not carry with it
a waiver of inadmissibi lity of evidence seized in an illegal warrantless arrest:

We agree with the respondent that the petitioner did not timely
object to the irregularity of his arrest before hi s arraignment as required by
the Ru les. In add it ion, he actively participated in the trial of the case. As
a resul t, the petitio ner is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction o r
the tria l court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest.

However, this waiver to question an illegal arrest only affects the

jurisdiction of the court over his person . It is well-settled that a waiver of
an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry w ith it a waiver of the
inadm iss ibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.

Since the shabu was seized during an illegal arrest, its

inadmissibility as evidence precludes conviction and j ustifies the acquittal
of the petitioner. 78

Again, any evidence obtained in violation of the right of the people to

be secure in the ir persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall be inadmiss ible as evidence for any purpose in
any proceeding. 79

This Comi previously decided cases where the inadmissibility of

evidence during an illegal warrantless arrest led to the acqu ittal of the
accused since the corpus delicti of the crime was not proven. 80

In People v. Velasco, 8 1 this Court reiterated the essential elements that

must be established to convict an accused fo r illegal possession of an
explosive device:

To convict an accused for illegal possession of an explosive devise

(sic) under P.O. No. 1866, as amended, jurisprudence has held that two (2)
essentia l e lements must be indubitably establi shed: (a) the existence of the
subject firearm or explosive which may be proved by the presentati~m of
the subject firearm or explosive or by the testimony qf ·witnesses who saw
accused in possession of the sc11ne, and (b) the negative fact that the

n Homar v. People, 768 Phil 195, 209 (2015) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
79
683 Phil 399, 4 14 (20 12) [Per J. Sereno, Second Division], citing CONST., art. 111, secs. 2-3.
80
See Cruz v. People, 855 Phi l. 667 (20 19) [Per .I Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division]: Picardal v. People,
854 Phil. 575, (2019) [Per J. Cagu ioa, Second Divis ion]; Vaporoso v. People, 852 Ph il. 508 (20 19) [Per
J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Divis ion]; 1-fomar v. People. 768 Phil. 195 (2015) [Per J. Brion, Second
Division].
RI G .R. No. 231787, August 19, 20 19 [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].

A(88) URES(a) - more -

Resolution 14 G .R. No. 262626

accused had no license or permit to own or possess the firearm or

explosive which fact may be established by the testimony or certification
of a representative of the Philippine National Po lice rirearms and
Explosives Unit that the accused has no license or permit to possess the
subject firearm or cxplosive.82 (Emphasis supplied)

Since the hand grenade was obtained without a valid warrantless arrest
preceding it, it is inadm issible as evidence. The existence of an explosive,
which is an e lement of the crime of illegal possession of an explosive, was
not established. This necessitates the acquittal of accused-appellant.

FOR THESE REASONS, the June 30, 2021 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12602 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appell ant Nhell Boy Modar y Moriones is ACQUITTED and is
ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is confin ed for
some other lawfu l cause.

Let a copy of this judgment be furnished to the D irector of the Bureau

of Correcti ons for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is D[RECTED to repo1i the action he has taken to this Court
w ithin five (5) days from receipt of th is Resolu tion. Copies shall a lso be
furnished to the Chief of the Philippine National Police for their information.

Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

6.~
TUA~ON
erk of Court ~;1
24 OCT 2023

s2 Id.

A(88)URES(a) - more -
Resolution -PAGE IS- G .R. No. 262626
July 26, 2023

PUBUC ATTORNEY'S OFFlCE (reg)

Special & Appealed Cases Service
Department of Justice
5 111 Floor, PAO-DOJ Agencies Building
NlA Road corner East Ave nue
Diliman, 1104 Quezon City

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (reg)

134 Amorsolo Street
1229 Legaspi V illage
Makati City

NH ELL BOY MODAR y MORION ES (x)

Accused-Appellant
c/o The Director
Bureau of Corrections
I 770 Muntinlupa C ity

T HE DIRECTOR (x)
Bureau of Corrections
1770 Muntinlupa City·

THE SU PERJNTEN DENT(x)

New Bilibid Prison
I770 Muntinlupa C ity

HON. PRESIDING JUDGE ( reg)

Regional T rial Coui1, Branch 263
Marikina C ity
(Crim. Case No. 20 16-1 7803-MK)

PNP C HI EF (reg)
Philippine Natio nal Police
Nationa l Headqua rters
Camp Crame, Quezon C ity

J UDGMENT DIVISION (x)

Supreme Court, Manila

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)

LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]

OFFICE OF THE C HIEF ATTORNEY (x)

PHILIPPIN E J UDICIA L ACADEMY (x)
S upreme Court, Manila

COURT OF APPEALS (x)

Ma. Orosa Street
Ermita, I 000 Manila
CA-G.R. C R-HC No. 12602

Please notify the Court of any change i11 your address.

GR262626. 07/26/2023A(88)URES ptu/1-(