People v. Evaristo, G.R. No. 93828, 216 SCRA 431, December 11, 1992 [FULL CASE DIGEST]

People v. Evaristo, G.R. No. 93828, 216 SCRA 431, December 11, 1992

"Heard gunshots therefore an offense is being committed"

Waiver of right is the consent given in entering the house, resulting to seizure of evidence in plain view.

The peace officers, while on patrol, heard bursts of gunfire and they proceeded to investigate the matter. This incident is considered an offense and "an offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or HEARS THE DISTURBANCES CREATED THEREBY AND PROCEEDS AT ONCE TO THE SCENE THEREOF."

• While on routine patrol duty, the Philippine Constabulary officer patrolling heard gunfire within the vicinity. When they came upon the source, Rosillo was firing a gun into the air.
• Seeing the patrol, Rosillo ran to the nearby house of appellant Evaristo prompting the lawmen to pursue him. Upon approaching the house, the patrol saw appellants, Evaristo and Carillo, who were drunk. Inquiring as to the whereabouts of Rosillo, the police patrol were told that he had already escaped.
• Vallarta noticed a bulge on Carillo’s waist and subsequently frisked him revealing .38 caliber revolver. After ascertaining that Carillo was neither a member of the military nor had a valid license to possess the said firearm, the gun was confiscated and Carillo invited for questioning.
• Romeroso sought the consent of Evaristo for entry into the latter’s house to search for Rosillo and Evaristo consented.
• Upon entry they found various firearms, paraphernalia, and other effects, which became the basis for the charge of illegal possession of firearms.
• For their part, the appellants alleged that they were forcibly taken into custody. They denied ownership or knowledge of any of the firearms, contending that these were planted in their possession by the prosecution witnesses and other police authorities.

Whether the firearms are considered illegally seized evidence? NO.

• The Court ruled that doctrine of seizure of evidence in plain view, objects inadvertently falling in the plain view of an officer, who has a the right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence.
• In this case, Romerosa was granted permission by the appellant Evaristo to enter his house. The officer's purpose was to catch Rosillo whom he saw had sought refuge inside. Therefore, it is clear that the search for firearms was not Romerosa's purpose in entering the house, thereby rendering his discovery of the firearms as accidental. The plain view doctrine will apply to the seizure of the firearms and effects because their discovery was unintentional.
• The Court sustains the validly of the firearm's seizure and admissibility in evidence, based on the rule on authorized warrantless arrests. Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
• Valid warrantless arrests
• (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; 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 temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
• In this case, the second circumstance “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” is applicable. The peace officers, while on patrol, heard bursts of gunfire and this proceeded to investigate the matter. This incident is considered an offense and "an offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or HEARS THE DISTURBANCES CREATED THEREBY AND PROCEEDS AT ONCE TO THE SCENE THEREOF."
• As for the existence of personal knowledge, the gunfire, the bulge in Carillo’s waist, and the peace officer’s professional instinct are more than sufficient to grant him personal knowledge of the facts of the crime that has just been committed. Consequently, the firearm taken from Carillo can be said to have been seized incidental to a lawful and valid arrest.