Edwin Cadua vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines

Posted Aug 19, 1999

By Anonymous

6 min read

Case Title and Citation

Edwin Cadua, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents.
G.R. No. 123123, August 19, 1999
Supreme Court - Second Division
Ponente: Justice Quisumbing

Facts

On January 2, 1992, between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m., PO3 Joselito Burdeos and companions, while on patrol in Fairview, Quezon City, received a radio dispatch to proceed to Lot 10 Block 14, Alden Street, North Fairview regarding an alleged holdup of Lourdes Bulos and her daughter Bernadette.
At the scene the complainants said the holduppers had just fled and identified the location of the robbery (corner of Archer and Regalado Streets). They boarded the patrol unit to assist in searching the area.
Officers observed two men walking along the street; the complainants identified them as the alleged holduppers, one being petitioner Edwin Cadua.
As officers approached, Burdeos observed Cadua attempting to pull something tucked at his right waist. Burdeos pointed his firearm and shouted a warning, frisked Cadua and found a .38 caliber “paltik” revolver with four live ammunitions.
Cadua’s companion, later identified as Joselito Aguilar, was found in possession of a fan knife.
Firearms and Explosives Unit certification showed Cadua had no license for the .38 “paltik” revolver.
Assistant City Prosecutor filed an Information for violation of P.D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms) against Cadua; robbery was not prosecuted due to complainants’ doubts as to identity.
At trial Cadua pleaded not guilty and denied possession. Prosecution presented police eyewitness testimony and PNP-FEU certification; forensic test showed the gun had powder residue while Cadua tested negative for powder burns.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Cadua; Court of Appeals affirmed. Cadua filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues

Was the warrantless arrest of petitioner lawful? (Yes/No)
Was the search and seizure of the firearm admissible as incident to the arrest? (Yes/No)
Was there sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of a firearm? (Yes/No)
Should the penalty imposed be modified under Republic Act No. 8294 and related sentencing doctrines? (Yes/No)

Ruling

Yes - The warrantless arrest was lawful because officers had personal knowledge and observed petitioner attempting to draw a firearm in their presence.
Yes - The search and seizure were incident to a lawful arrest and therefore admissible.
Yes - The prosecution proved both the physical existence of the firearm and absence of a license to possess it beyond reasonable doubt.
Yes - The penalty was modified under R.A. 8294 and applicable sentencing doctrines; petitioner was ordered released for time served unless held for other lawful cause.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

Lawfulness of arrest:
1. Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court authorizes warrantless arrest when, among others, (a) an offense is being committed in the officer’s presence or (b) an offense has just been committed and the officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating the person committed it. The officers responded to a radio dispatch, met complainants who identified suspects, and observed petitioner attempting to draw a weapon. These circumstances furnished probable cause and personal knowledge to effect an arrest under paragraphs (a) and (b).
2. Precedents and authorities cited support that an officer may act on reasonable grounds of suspicion and personal knowledge in promptly responding to an apparent recent felony (see People v. Ancheta, U.S. v. Santos, and discussion in Ricardo J. Francisco, Criminal Procedure).
3. The fact that the robbery complaint was not prosecuted does not retroactively vitiate the legality of the initial arrest; legality depends on the reasonableness of the officer’s perception at the time (citing cases such as Rabaja v. Court of Appeals and related authorities).
Admissibility of search and seizure:
1. Section 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court permits search of a person lawfully arrested for weapons or things used in commission of an offense without a warrant. Because the arrest was lawful and petitioner was observed attempting to draw the gun, the ensuing frisk and seizure were lawful.
Proof of illegal possession:
1. Prosecution established by eyewitness police testimony that the .38 “paltik” was taken from petitioner’s person at arrest. PNP-FEU testimony/certification that petitioner had no license satisfied the negative element (lack of permit). The Court gave weight to trial court credibility findings and the presumption that police performed duties regularly (citing People v. Ballagan; People v. Gazmen; Section 3(m), Rule 131).
2. Negative forensic test for powder burns on petitioner was held immaterial to the possession element; firing the weapon is not required to prove illegal possession.
Sentencing modification:
1. R.A. 8294 (June 6, 1997) reduced the penalty for simple illegal possession of a low-powered firearm such as a “paltik” to prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than P15,000. Article 22 RPC permits retroactive application of penal laws favorable to the convict.
2. Indeterminate Sentence Law principles (People v. Martin Simon) and Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law permit imposition of an indeterminate sentence within the revised range where applicable.
3. The Court therefore reduced the principal penalty to prision correccional medium (2 years, 4 months, 1 day to 5 years, 4 months, 20 days), imposed a P15,000 fine with subsidiary imprisonment for nonpayment, and ordered immediate release since petitioner had served time exceeding the maximum principal term under the amended penalty, unless detained for another lawful cause.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

A warrantless arrest is lawful when an officer has personal knowledge and probable cause to believe an offense is being committed in his presence or was just committed and the suspect is implicated (Sec. 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court).
A search incident to a lawful arrest is permissible without a warrant to seize weapons or items evidence of offense (Sec. 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court).
Credibility findings of trial courts, especially concerning police eyewitnesses, are accorded high respect unless clearly erroneous.
For illegal possession of firearms, prosecution must prove (a) existence of the firearm and (b) absence of license; a forensic negative for powder burns does not negate possession.
Penal laws beneficial to the accused apply retroactively (Article 22, Revised Penal Code); sentencing must conform to amended penalties and applicable indeterminate sentence doctrines.

Disposition

The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with MODIFICATION of sentence.
Petitioner is sentenced to prision correccional medium of 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day as minimum to 5 years, 4 months, and 20 days as maximum, plus a fine of P15,000.00; subsidiary imprisonment shall apply for nonpayment of the fine.
Because petitioner has already served more than seven years and five months in prison—exceeding the maximum principal penalty under the amended law—he is ORDERED RELEASED immediately, unless lawfully detained for other causes.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

Concurring: Justices Bellosillo, Mendoza, and Buena concurred.
No dissenting opinion noted.

Significance / Notes

Confirms that prompt police action based on a recent crime report plus identification by victims and observation of suspicious conduct (attempt to draw a weapon) can furnish personal knowledge and probable cause for a lawful warrantless arrest.
Reinforces that searches incident to lawful arrests render seized items admissible; procedural defects in related but distinct charges (e.g., dropped robbery complaint) do not automatically invalidate arrests or seizures related to other offenses.
Affirms that forensic evidence negative for powder burns does not necessarily negate possession and is not required to prove illegal possession of firearms.
Illustrates retroactive application of penal reforms (R.A. 8294) and interplay with the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 22 RPC in reducing penalties and ordering release when time served exceeds the amended maximum.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.