People v. Namuag

 

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.