Picardal v. People

 

Picardal v. People

G.R. No. 235949

June 19, 2019

FACTS:

                The RTC and CA convicted Ramon Picardal y Baluyot for the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms. Police Officer (PO) 1 Mark Anthony Peniano is a regular member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned at Ermita Police Station located at Baseco PNP Compound, Port Area, Manila. On March 27, 2014, at around 8:00 o'clock in the evening, together with his companion POI William Cristobal and PO 1 Rodrigo Co, while they were on a beat patrol back to the station, they chanced upon a person urinating against the wall. The police officers approached said person who was later identified as accused-appellant Ramon Picardal. The place is well-lighted since it is within the main road. PO 1 Peniano told accused-appellant that it is forbidden to urinate in public. In view of said violation, they invited accused-appellant to go with them to the precinct. When PO 1 Peniano is about to handcuff him, accused-appellant attempted to run. His attempt failed since PO 1 Peniano was able to get hold of his hand. Once caught, PO 1 Peniano frisked accused-appellant and was able to recover a caliber .38 revolver from his waist. The rusty [pistol] with a handle made of wood contained five (5) live ammunitions. Accused-appellant was brought to the police station, after POI Cristobal apprised him of his constitutional rights. At the police station, PO 1 Peniano referred accused-appellant to the officers in-charge for the purpose of medical examination and the recovered items were surrendered to P/Chief Insp. William Santos for safekeeping. The following morning, the items were retrieved back by POI Peniano and gave the same to the assigned investigator, PO3 Anthony Navarro, for proper marking. PO 1 Peniano had the confiscated firearm checked with the Firearm and Explosive Division (FED) of the PNP and it was discovered that the same is a loose firearm. The FED was issued a certification stating that accused-appellant is not licensed or registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA erred in convicting Picardal.

HELD:

                Yes. At the outset, it is well to emphasize that the factual findings of the CA, affirming that of the trial court, are generally final and conclusive on the Court. The foregoing rule, however, is subject to the following exceptions: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; ( 4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; ( 6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of fact are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.

                In the present case, the ninth exception applies. The CA manifestly overlooked the undisputed facts that: (1) the firearm subject of this case was seized from Picardal after he was frisked by the police officers for allegedly urinating in a public place; and (2) the aforementioned case for "urinating in a public place" filed against Picardal was subsequently dismissed by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. The act supposedly committed by Picardal - urinating in a public place - is punished only by Section 2(a) of Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Regulation No. 96-009. Thus, as the firearm was discovered through an illegal 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 acquitted.