PEOPLE V.

LEON LUMILAN January 25, 2000 Accused-appellants Leon Lumilan and Antonio Garcia were found by the RTC of Ilagan, Isabela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of murder, two (2) counts of frustrated murder, and three (3) counts of attempted murder, under an Information charging them and accused Fred Orbiso with the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder, in violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866. Issue: Whether or not appellants may be properly convicted of murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder under an Information that charges them with qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder in violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866? HELD: At the time the trial court promulgated its judgment of conviction in September 1990, it had already been six (6) months since We held in People v. Tac-an that the unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm or ammunition, whether or not homicide or murder resulted from its use, on one hand, and murder or homicide, on the other, are offenses different and separate from and independent of, each other. While the former is punished under a special law, the latter is penalized under the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the prosecution for one will not bar prosecution for the other, and double jeopardy will not lie. Under Sec. 7 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court, double jeopardy lies when after the accused has pleaded to the first offense charged in a valid complaint or information and he is subsequently convicted or acquitted or the case against him is dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, he is prosecuted for a second offense or any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof or any other offense, which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. It cannot be said that murder or homicide necessarily includes or is necessarily included in qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide. To state otherwise is to contradict Tac-an and its progeny of cases where We categorically ruled out the application of double jeopardy in the simultaneous prosecution for murder or homicide and qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide against same accused involving the same fatal act. Sec. 4, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that an accused may not be convicted of an offense other than that with which he is charged in the Information, unless such other offense was both established by evidence and is included in the offense charged in the Information. Since murder or homicide neither includes or is necessarily included in qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide, the trial court may not validly convict an accused for the former crime under an Information charging the latter offense. Conversely, an accused charged in the Information with homicide or murder may not be convicted of qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide, for the latter is not included in the former. We observe that the Information charging appellants with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder, violates Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, which obliterated the now obsolete concept of qualified illegal possession of firearms or illegal possession of firearms in its aggravated form, i.e., where the penalty for illegal possession is increased to reclusion perpetua or death by the attendance of homicide or murder. In fact, qualified illegal possession of firearms, which used to be a distinct offense, no longer exists in our statute books. People vs. Walpan Ladjaalm(G.r. No. 135149-51)FACTS: Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil, also known as Warpan, appeals before us the September 17, 1998Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City (Branch 16), which found him guilty of three out of the four charges lodged against him.Filed against appellant were four Informations, all signed by Assistant Regional State Prosecutor Ricardo G. Cabaron and dated September 25, 1997. The first Information was for maintaining a den for the use of regulated drugs. It reads as follows:That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Walpan Ladjaalam being then the owner of a residential house located at Rio Hondo, this City, conspiring and confederating together, mutuallyaiding and assisting his co-accused wife Nur-in Ladjaalam and Ahmad

Sailabbi y Hajaraini, did then andthere wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, maintain said house as a den, where regulated drug was usedin any form.The second Information charged appellant with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.We quote it below:That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together,mutually aiding and assisting with one another, without any justifiable reason or purpose other than to use it in the commission of crime, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in their possession and under their custody and control, the following weapons, to wit: one (1) M14 rifle with SN1555225 with magazines and seven (7) rounds of live ammunition; two (2) magazines with twenty (20)and twenty[-one] (21) rounds of live [ammunition]; one (1) homemade caliber .38 revolver with five (5)live ammunition; one (1) M-79 (single) rifle with pouch and with five (5) empty shell[s]; one (1) homemade caliber .38 with SN-311092 with five live ammunition and one empty shell of [a] cal. 38 x x xSmith and Wesson; two (2) .38 Caliber paltik revolver with Serial Number 311092 and one defaced M79grenade launcher paltik, without first having obtained the necessary license and or permit therefor fromauthorities concerned, in flagrant violation of the aforementioned law.The third Information, for multiple attempted murder with direct assault, was worded thus:That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being then armed with M-14 ArmaliteRifles, M-16 Armalite Rifles and other assorted firearms and explosives, conspiring and confederatingtogether, mutually aiding and assisting one another and with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully,unlawfully and feloniously try and attempt to kill SPO1 WILLIAM B. JONES, JR., PO3 ENRIQUE C.RIVERA[,] SPO1 AMADO A. MIRASOL, JR., and SPO1 RICARDO J. LACASTESANTOS, in thefollowing manner, to wit: by then and there firing their M-14 Armalite Rifles, M-16 Armalite Rifles andother assorted firearms and explosives, aimed and directed at the fatal parts of the bodies of the above-named police officers, well known to the accused as members of the Philippine National Police,Zamboanga City Police Office, and as such, agents of a person in authority, who at the time of the attack were engaged in the performance of their duties, that is, on the occasion when said officers were about toserve the Search Warrant legally issued by the Regional Trial Court, this City, to the person of theaccused thus commencing the commission of crime of multiple murder directly by overt acts, and if theaccused did not accomplish their unlawful purpose, that is, to kill the above-named Police Officers, itwas not by reason of their own voluntary desistance but rather because of the fact that all the above-named police officers were able to seek cover during the firing and were not hit by the bullets andexplosives fired by the accused and also by the fact said police officers were able to wrestle with two (2)of the accused namely: Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil a.k.a. Warpan and Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajairani,who were subdued and subsequently placed under arrest; whereas accused PO2 Nurhakim T. Hadjulawas able to make good his escape and has remained at-large.In the fourth Information, appellant was charged with illegal possession of drugs.On December 21, 1997, the cases against Nur-in Ladjaalam and Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajaraini weredismissed upon motion of the Office of the City Prosecutor, which had conducted a reinvestigation of thecases as ordered by the lower court. The accused were consequently released from jail.The trial court convicted appellant of three crimes: (1) maintenance of a drug den, (2) directassault with attempted homicide, and (3) illegal possession of firearms.Hence, this appeal: ISSUE/S: 1.) WON appellant is guilty of maintenance of a drug den. 2.) WON appellant is guilty of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide 3.) WON appellant is guilty of illegal possession of firearms RULING: 1.)Maintenance of a Drug Den We agree with the trial court that appellant was guilty of maintenance of a drug den, an offense for which he was correctly sentenced to reclusion perpetua. His guilt was clearly established by the testimony of Prosecution Witness Rino Bartolome Locson, who himself had used the extension house of appellant as a drug den on several occasions, including the time of the raid. The formers testimony wascorroborated by all the raiding police officers who testified before the court. That appellant did not denyownership of the house and its extension lent credence to the prosecutions story. 2.)Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide

The trial court was also correct in convicting appellant of direct assault with multiple counts of attempted homicide. It found that [t]he act of the accused [of] firing an M14 rifle [at] the policemen[,]who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant x x x constituted such complex crime. We note that direct assault with the use of a weapon carries the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, while attempted homicide carries the penalty of prision correccional .Hence, for the present complex crime, the penalty for direct assault, which constitutes the most serious crime, should be imposed and applied in its maximum period. 2.)Illegal Possession of Firearms Republic Act No. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that the person arrested committed no other crime. Furthermore, if the person is held liable for murder or homicide, Illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance, but not a separate offense. Hence, where an accused was convicted of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an unlicensed M-14rifle at several policemen who were about to serve a search warrant, he cannot be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms. Neither can such unlawful act be considered to have aggravated the direct assault. If an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the other crime is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms. Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused. In this case, the plain meaning of RA 8294s simple language is most favorable to herein appellant. Verily, no other interpretation is justified, for the language of the new law demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the accused. Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of two separate offenses of illegal possession of firearms and direct assault with attempted homicide. Moreover, since the crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance. The accused was convicted of the crime of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an M14 rifle to police men who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant. Further, he was also convicted for illegal possession of firearm. HELD: RA no. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that the person arrested committed no other crime. Furthermore, if the person is held liable for murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance, but not a separate offense. Hence, where an accused was convicted of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an unlicensed M14 rifle at several policemen who were about to serve a search warrant, he cannot be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms. Neither can such unlawful act be considered to have aggravated the direct assault.

, Criminal Case No. 96-149820 for illegal possession of firearms is hereby DISMISSED whilethe judgment of conviction in Criminal Case No. 96-149821 for violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826in relation to Rep. Act No. 7166 (Gun Ban), is AFFIRMED.

PEOPLE V. PO2 RODEL SAMONTE G.R. No.126048 Sept.29, 2000 There was a shooting incident resulting to the death of Perez. Accused was detailed in the Mayor's Office. His revolver and a 38 palter was taken from him. Branch 9 acquitted him of the crime of homicide but Branch 3 found him guilty of illegal possession of firearms aggravated by homicide under PD1866. Issue: W/N the doctrine of P v Quijada stating that qualified illegal possession of firearms and homicide are distinct and separate offenses is still followed. HELD: No Applying the new law RA8249 in P v Molina the Court has declared that under the amendment in said law that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed forearm, such use of the same should only be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Noel Advincula vs. Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 131144 October 18, 2000 Facts: Petitioner was a complainant who filed a charge of Illegal Possession of Firearms which was then subsequently dismissed due to lack of evidence. However, upon findings of the Secretary of Justice, he ordered the Provincial prosecutor to file a charge of illegal possession of firearms against respondents. On the other hand, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals which was subsequently granted by the CA. Such action prompted this petition. The Secretary of Justice claims in his contested resolution that (1) Even if Amando had the sufficient license, there was no proof that he had the necessary permit to carry it outside his residence. (2)Isaganis plain denial could not overcome his positive identification by petitioner that he carried a firearm in assaulting him. Issue: (1)Whether or not the Court of Appeals may validly set aside a resolution filed by the Secretary of Justice. (2) Whether or not there was illegal possession of firearms. Held: (1) No. The Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the petition of the Secretary of Justice. This petition arose from a case which was still in its preliminary stages, the issue being whether there was probable cause to hold private respondents for trial. And probable cause, for purposes of filing criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. The determination of its existence lies within the discretion of the prosecuting officers after conducting a preliminary investigation upon complaint of an offended party. Their decisions are reviewable by the Secretary of Justice who may direct the filing of the corresponding information or to move for the dismissal of the case. The procedure is in no wise in the nature of a trial that will finally adjudicate the guilt or innocence of private respondents. Whatever irregularity in the proceedings the private parties may raise should be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court which has already acquired jurisdiction over the case. Certiorari, being an extraordinary writ, cannot be resorted to when there are other remedies available. Private respondents could file a Motion to Quash the Information under Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, or let the trial proceed where they can either file a demurrer to evidence or present their evidence to disprove the charges against them. It is well settled that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final, subject to certain exceptions, e.g., when the determination of probable cause is done with grave abuse of discretion. Hence, the Court of Appeals erred in granting private respondents' Petition for Certiorari and, worse, setting aside the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. Petition for review is granted. (2) The requisite evidence for convicting a person of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms is not

Vicente agote y matol vs. hon. Manuel LorenzoGr. No. 142675; July 22, 2005 Facts: The petitioner was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms under PD. No. 1866 and violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 (Gun Ban) at the same time. The petitioner contends that the reducedpenalty under Rep. Act No. 8294 should be the one imposed on him, but the respondent judge did not givesuch a retroactive application. The said act provides that there can be no separate offense of illegalpossession of firearms and ammunition if there is another crime committed. The latter contends that itonly gives Rep. Act No. 8294 an effect to prevent the conviction of an accused of the separate crime of illegal possession of firearm when the said unlicensed firearm was ' used to commit the crime.Issue: Whether or not the unlicensed firearm should be actually used and discharged in the course of committing the other crime in order that Sec. 1, Rep. Act No. 8294 will apply. Held: No. Sec. 1, Rep. Act No. 8294 restrains the Court from convicting petitioner of the separate crime of illegalpossession of firearm despite the fact that the unlicensed firearm was not actually 'used. For sure, there isa closer relation between possession of unlicensed firearm and violation of the COMELEC gun-ban than theillegal possession of unlicensed firearm to the crime of illegal possession of prohibited drugs in Almeidacase. WHEREFORE

needed at this point. It is enough that the Secretary of Justice found that the facts, as presented by both petitioner and private respondents, would constitute a violation of PD 1866. People vs. Ronald aka Roland Garcia, et. al. G.R. Nos. 133489 & 143970 January 15, 2002 Facts: There was a kidnapping for ransom. Atty. Romualdo Tioleco was the victim and Ronald Garcia, Rotchel Lariba, Rodante Rogel and Gerry Valler were the perpetrators each found by the Trial Court as performing different acts wherein 2 were co-conspirators (Garcia and Valler) while the other two (Lariba and Rogel) were deemed accomplices. Issue: (1) Whether or not demand or actual payment of ransom money is material in a Kidnapping for ransom case. (2) Whether accused appelants Lariba and Rogel be guilty of Illegal Possession of firearms. Held: (1) There is no quantum of merit in the contention that kidnapping for ransom is committed only when the victim is released as a result of the payment of ransom. In People v. Salimbago, it was ruled that specific form of ransom is required to consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom so long as it was intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victim's freedom. In municipal criminal law, ransom refers to the money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person or persons, a payment that releases from captivity. Thus, actual demand or payment is immaterial. (2) In line with the ruling in People vs. Ladjaalam, accused-appelants were exonerated of the crime of illegal possession of firearms there being another crime of Kidnapping for ransom for which they were accomplices. Cadua vs. CA and People G.R. No. 123123 August 19, 1999 Facts: PO3 Bordeous and his companions were assigned to a mobile unit which received a radio dispatch that an alleged hold-up took place. Upon arriving to the area, he saw the victims and took them with him to possibly identify the perpetrators. Upon searching the vicinity, he noticed two men which were at that precise moment were identified by the victims as the perpetrators. When he called the attention of the two men, one of them was about to draw something but was negated when PO3 Bordeous warned to shoot. Accused-appellants were apprehended, one possessed a .38 paltik revolver while the other had a fan knife. Issue: (1) Whether or not there was a valid arrest. (2) Whether or not Cadua is guilty of illegal possession of firearms. Held: (1) There was a probable cause which was the hold-up, although incidental to the arrest. Also, in line with Section 5 of Rule 113 of the rules of Court: A police 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 in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. The actions of Cadua during the arrest contemplated paragraph (a) of the said rule. (2) He is guilty. Since arrest was valid then evidence (.38 revolver) is admissible in Court. Furthermore, only two elements must be present in a case for illegal possession of firearms: (a) positively, the existence of the subject firearm, and (b) negatively, the fact that the accused did not have a license or permit to possess the same. Since there was a positive testimony from the Firearms and Explosive Unit represented by SPO1 Gabitan that accused-appellant Cadua had no permit to possess suffices to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element. However, the court took notice of reviewing the penalty for R.A. 8294 is more favourable to the accused than P.D. 1866.

Sentence Law (ISLaw). However, taking notice of the new law which was R.A. 8294, he filed a petition for the issuance for the writ of habeas corpus for his immediate release believing that he has served the maximum penalty for both offenses. The Supreme Court did not agree with his plea for citing Article 70 that he has to serve both penalties simultaneously which would then equal to 12 years and 8 months which was far short of his already served out sentence of 9 years and 3 months. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to his right to be released in the light of the new law which is R.A. 8294. Held: Yes he was entitled for the immediate release. In line with the decision with People vs. Walpan Ladjaalam which clearly interpreted that one cannot be guilty of illegal possession of firearms when he or she has committed another crime. Thus, he is only guilty of the crime of Robbery and exonerated from the crime of illegal possession of firearms. He was ordered to be dismissed immediately for he has already served way beyond the penalty of six (6) years and eight (8) months maximum for the crime of Robbery. Bernard Nala vs. Judge Barroso, Jr. G.R. 153087 August 7, 2003 Facts: Petitioner having searched and seized his dwelling for alleged illegal possession of firearms and was subsequently filed a criminal case for such crime filed a motion to quash the search warrant. The purpose of the motion to quash was to invalidate the search warrant thus making the seized items inadmissible to the court for the trial. However, such motion was denied by the RTC of Malaybalay, Branch 10. Hence, this petition. Issue: (1) Whether or not there was a valid search warrant. (2) Whether or not accused appellant is guilty of Illegal Possession of firearms. Held: (1) No, the search warrant was declared void. First reason was the absence of probable cause. Applicant PO3 Alcoser together with his witness Nalagon had only personal belief that the accused had in his possession the said firearms. On the part of the applicant, PO3 Alcoser, there is no showing that he had also personal knowledge for there was absence of surveillance. Moreover, PO3 Alcoser and Nalagon did not verify it first from proper authorities that the accused had no license to carry the said firearm. Hence, the search warrant is void. (2) Accused-appellant is not guilty of the crime of Illegal Possession of firearm for the objects seized in court was illegally obtained due to the voiding of the search warrant possessed by PO3 Alcoser at the time of the search. It is in line with the concept of fruits of a poisonous tree which are inadmissible to the court proceedings thus absolving the accused-appellant of the criminal case. However, the seized items remain in the possession of the courts or in custodial legis. Valeroso vs. People G.R. No. 164815 February 22, 2008 Facts: Petitioner was to be served a warrant of arrest for the crime of kidnapping for ransom. Upon investigation, police found out upon certification of a representative of Firearms and Explosive Division that it was licensed to a different person not the petitioner. Petitioner had a different version of the story which alleges that search officers had an axe to grind with him However, petitioner was still convicted for illegal possession of firearms. Petitioner files for review on Certiorari for the case of illegal possession of firearms that was both affirmed by the RTC and the CA. Issue: (1) Whether or not he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. (2) Whether or not there was valid license to carry firearm. Held: (1) Yes, he is guilty beyond reasonable. First, proof was established by the certification made by a representative of Firearms and Explosive Division which is beyond the hearsay rule. Second, it is in line to the principle that the decision via the observation of the Trial court should be respected and given much credence and weight. It negated the idea that there was frame-up. (2)There was none as attested by the certification of the Firearms and Explosive Division which was given greater weight than the Memorandum receipt the petitioner was claiming which was found that its issuance lacked bureaucratic constraints which weakens and questions its validity as found during the crossexamination of SPO3 Timbol, Jr.

Danilo Evangelista vs. Hon. Pedro Sistoza G.R. No. 143881 August 9, 2001 Facts: Petitioner was sentenced for both the crimes of Robbery and illegal possession of firearm. The Court of Appeals on the other hand modified the penalty and he was to sentenced to suffer the Indeterminate

VALEROSO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR 164815 February 22, 2008Petitioner: PSINSP JERRY C VALEROSORespondent: The People of the PhilippinesFACTS:On July 10, 1996, SPO2 Antonio Disuanco received a dispatch order which directed him and three (3)other personnel to serve a warrant of arrest against petitioner in a case for kidnapping with ransom.Then, the team proceeded to the Integrated National Police Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City,where they saw petitioner as he was about to board a tricycle. SPO2 Disuanco and his team put thepetitioner under arrest when they found tucked in his waist a Charter Arms with five (5) liveammunition.Petitioner was brought to the police station for questioning. A verification of the subject firearm at theFirearms and Explosives Division at Camp Crame revealed that it was not issued to the petitioner but toanother person. Petitioner was then charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition underPD No. 1866 as amended.On May 6, 1998 trial court found petitioner guilty as charged. Petitioner moved to reconsider but hismotion was denied. He appealed to the CA. On May 4, 2004, the appellate court affirmed the RTCdisposition.ISSUES:I.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW IN AFFIRMING THECONVICTION OF PETITIONER DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.RULING:In illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, the prosecution has the burden of proving the twinelements of (1) the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition, and (2) the fact that the accusedwho possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it.[53]The existence of the subject firearm and its ammunition was established through the testimony of SPO2Disuanco.[54] Defense witness Yuson also identified the firearm.[55] Its existence was likewise admittedby the petitioner himself.[56]The Court on several occasions ruled that either the testimony of a representative of, or a certificationfrom, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that a person is not alicensee of any firearm would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of possession of illegal firearms.[59] The prosecution more than complied when it presented both.

: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the February 22, 2008 Decision and June 30, 2008Resolution are RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. Sr. Insp. Jerry Valeroso is hereby ACQUITTED of illegalpossession of firearm and ammunition. RATIONALE/REASON: From the foregoing narration of facts, we can readily conclude that the arrestingofficers served the warrant of arrest without any resistance from Valeroso. They placed himimmediately under their control by pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him out of the room with hishands tied. To be sure, the cabinet which, according to Valeroso, was locked, could no longer beconsidered as an "area within his immediate control" because there was no way for him to take anyweapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used against him. 2The arresting officers would have been justified in searching the person of Valeroso, as well asthe tables or drawers in front of him, for any concealed weapon that might be used against the former.But under the circumstances obtaining, there was no comparable justification to search through all thedesk drawers and cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas in that room itself.It is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception (warrantless search as an incident to alawful arrest) is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might bearmed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach. Theexception, therefore, should not be strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose. In the case before us, search was made in the locked cabinet which cannot be said to have been within Valerosos immediate control. Thus, the search exceeded the bounds of what may be considered as an incident to alawful arrest.Nor can the warrantless search in this case be justified under the "plain view doctrine."The "plain view doctrine" may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures or to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendants guilt. Th edoctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, butnonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Indeed, the police officers were inside the boarding house of Valerosos children, b ecause theywere supposed to serve a warrant of arrest issued against Valeroso. In other words, the police officershad a prior justification for the intrusion. Consequently, any evidence that they would inadvertentlydiscover may be used against Valeroso. However, in this case, the police officers did not just accidentallydiscover the subject firearm and ammunition; they actually searched for evidence against Valeroso. Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of Valerosos right against unreasona ble searchand seizure. Consequently, the evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible in evidenceagainst him.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 4, 2004 is AFFIRMED in full.

ERRY VALEROSO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESSeptember 3, 2009G.R. No. 164815STATEMENT OF THE CASE: A petition for review on certiorari involving the decision of the Hon. Court of Appeals which affirmed that of the RTC of Quezon City in finding the petitioner-accused Jerry Valerosoliable of illegal possession of firearm. FACTS OF THE CASE: Petitioner was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition underP.D. 1866 and was found liable as charged before the RTC of Quezon City.On July 10, 1996, the Central District Command served a duly issued warrant of arrest to Sr.Insp. Jerry Valeroso in a case of kidnapping for ransom. Valeroso was found and arrested in INP CentralStation in Culiat, Quezon City where he was about to board a tricycle. He was bodily searched and afterwhich a firearm with live ammunition was found tucked in his waist. The subject firearm was laterverified by the Firearms and Explosive Division at Camp Crame and was confirmed and revealed to havenot been issued to the petitioner but to another person.The defense on the other hand contended that Valeroso was arrested and searched in theboarding house of his children in New Era Quezon City. He was aroused from his slumber when fourheavily armed men in civilian clothes bolted the room. The pointed their guns on him and pulled him outof the room as the raiding team went back inside, searched and ransacked the room. Moments later anoperative came out of the room exclaiming that he has found a gun inside. Adrian Yuson, an occupant tothe adjacent room testified for the defense. SPO3 Timbol, Jr. testified that the firearm with liveammunition was issued to Jerry Valeroso by virtue of a Memorandum Receipt.The petitioner was found guilty as charged by the RTC. On appeal, the appellate court affirmedthe same. Hence this petition. Petitioner raised the issue of legalilty of the search and the admissibility and validity of the evidence obtained as the same was the fruit of the poisonous tree. ISSUE : Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid. RULING