People v. Namuag
G.R. No. 233209
March 11, 2019
FACTS:
RTC and
CA convicted the accused for violation of RA 9516. Accused-appellant was
separately charged for illegal or unauthorized possession of a hand grenade and
an unlicensed pistol (later found to be a replica). The relevant portions of
the Information are as follows: That on July 19, 2014, at more or less 1:30
o'clock in the afternoon at LBC Pabayo-Chavez Streets, Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without authority of law, permit or license to possess or
carry an explosive, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally and
knowingly have in his possession, custody and control, one (1) Fuze M204A2
Grenade without first securing the necessary license or permit to possess the
same from the proper authorities.
The
second one was That on July 19, 2014, at more or less 1:30 o'clock in the
afternoon at LBC Pabayo-Chavez Streets, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without authority of law, permit or license to possess or carry [a] firearm,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally and knowingly have in his
possession, custody and control, One (1) Caliber .25 Pistol (Replica) without
first securing the necessary license or permit to possess the same from the
proper authorities.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the CA gravely erred in finding that the arrest of accused-appellant was
lawful. / Prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD:
No.
Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, viz.:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an
offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe, based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment
or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another. It has been ruled time
and again that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity with
regard to his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal
of the information against him on this ground before his arraignment. Besides,
only those pieces of evidence obtained after an unreasonable search and seizure
are inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
Accused-appellant failed to timely question the illegality of his arrest and to
present evidence (or at least some reasonable explanation) to substantiate his
alleged wrongful detention.
No comments:
Post a Comment