The Court of Appeals has reversed a 2022 joint decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting a Bagamanoc resident for illegal possession of a loaded handgun, ammunition and a rifle grenade.
In its ruling promulgated on June 28, 2024, the CA’s Third Division granted the appeal of Ramel Andes Pelagio, also known as Ramil Pelagio, and, in setting aside the decision of RTC Branch 42, ordered his acquittal and immediate release from detention at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City.
Records show that Bagamanoc police officer-in-charge PLt. Exequiel Belma received information that Pelagio was seen in possession of a firearm in barangay Salvacion, with the tip later positively validated by an intelligence officer who was also able to verify that Pelagio was not licensed to possess a firearm of any caliber.
Armed with a search warrant from the Court, police operatives went to the Pelagio residence at 9:30 PM of May 30, 2021 where they came upon the accused and his brother.
In the presence of two barangay kagawads, the police allegedly found a small white sack covered by a pillow in his bedroom, with the sack containing a caliber .38 revolved loaded with six bullets, seven pieces of 5.56mm ammunition and a rifle grenade.
In his defense, Pelagio denied the charges and claimed that at around 10 PM that day, he was in his house with his family when the police suddenly arrived, brought him inside and ordered him to lie down.
As he was not hiding anything, he said he allowed the police officers to enter and search his house prior to the implementation of the search warrant.
Pelagio alleged that as an abaca stripper, he could not afford to own the seized firearms, ammunition and explosive.
The RTC, however, gave credence to the evidence of the prosecution and found him guilty om both charges, sentencing him to imprisonment of 10 to 12 years for the illegal possession of firearm and ammunition and reclusion perpetua for the illegal possession of explosive.
In his appeal, Pelagio argued that the search warrant was invalidly issued as there was no indication that the judge made the requisite examination from which the factual basis for probable cause to issue the warrant was derived.
“Mere submission of Application for Search Warrant, Affidavits, Daily Intelligence Brief and Information Report does not necessarily entail that the issuing judge extensively examined the applicant in writing and under oath,” he stated, adding that there was no specific description of the place to be searched, even as the search warrant failed to mention the specific address of the place to be searched as no house number or street was indicated.
He also alleged that there was a gap in the chain of custody of the seized items and denied ownership of the items as he was merely implicated as a member of the New People’s Army (NPA) after he was allegedly seen in the area during a raid on the Bagamanoc police station.
The Office of the Solicitor General maintained that the Court did not commit any reversible error in convicting the accused.
The CA Third Division, with Associate Justice Geraldine Fiel-Macaraig as ponente, ruled otherwise and found merit in the appeal.
In declaring the search warrant as invalid, the appeals court pointed out that the records bear no evidence, testimonial and documentary, that the requisite examination was made by the judge who issued the search warrant.
“The testimonies given during trial by the prosecution witnesses made no reference to an extensive examination of PLT Bielma and his witnesses supposedly conducted by the judge before Search Warrant 2021-29-EJ was issued,” it stressed.
In view of the nullity of the search warrant issued against appellant, he could not be deemed to have waived the protection of his right against unreasonable search, the CA stated.
The search conducted is likewise void, it said, with the evidence obtained in violation of appellant’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures considered inadmissible, it concluded.
The decision was concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon Bato Jr. and Associate Justice Jennifer Joy Ong.