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 offens
e is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the mean
ing of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees t
he offense, although at a distance, or HEARS THE DISTURBANCES CREATED THEREBY AN
D PROCEEDS AT ONCE TO THE SCENE THEREOF."

While on routine patrol duty, the Philippine Constabulary officer patrolling hear
d gunfire within the vicinity. When they came upon the source, Rosillo was firin
g a gun into the air.
Seeing the patrol, Rosillo ran to the nearby house of appellant Evaristo promptin
g the lawmen to pursue him. Upon approaching the house, the patrol saw appellant
s, Evaristo and Carillo, who were drunk. Inquiring as to the whereabouts of Rosi
llo, 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 th
e military nor had a valid license to possess the said firearm, the gun was conf
iscated 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 b
ecame 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 the
se were planted in their possession by the prosecution witnesses and other polic
e authorities.
Whether the firearms are considered illegally seized evidence? NO.
The Court ruled that doctrine of seizure of evidence in plain view, objects inadv
ertently falling in the plain view of an officer, who has a the right to be in t
he position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be introduced as e
vidence.
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 ref
uge 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 firearm
s as accidental. The plain view doctrine will apply to the seizure of the firear
ms and effects because their discovery was unintentional.
The Court sustains the validly of the firearm's seizure and admissibility in evid
ence, based on the rule on authorized warrantless arrests. Section 5, Rule 113 o
f the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
Valid warrantless arrests
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually c
ommitting, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowled
ge 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 est
ablishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined w
hile his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confin
ement 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 burst
s of gunfire and this proceeded to investigate the matter. This incident is cons
idered an offense and "an offense is committed in the presence or within the vie
w 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 wai
st, and the peace officer s professional instinct are more than sufficient to gran
t 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 in
cidental to a lawful and valid arrest.