Padilla v. CA

PADILLA v.
COURT OF APPEALS
March 12, 1997 | Francisco, J. | Relations of RPC to special penal
laws
PETITONER: Robin Carino Padilla
RESPONDENT: Court of the Appeals and People of the
Philippines
FACTS:
On October 26, 1992, Manarang, a member of both the
Spectrum (a civic group) and Barangay Disaster Coordinating
Council, and Perez heard a sound of a vehicle hitting
something while there was a heavy downpour of rain. The
vehicle immediately fled the area of the incident.
Upon investigation of the place of impact, Manarang found out
that the vehicle hit a balut vendor. He reported such incident
to the PNP and chased the speeding vehicle with his
motorcycle.
The PNP was able to cut the path of the vehicle in a bridge.
SPO2 Miranda, the arresting officer, ordered the driver to
alight the vehicle. The police officers recognized the driver to
be Robin Padilla.
When the accused raised both of his hands, a gun and an
armalite magazine were exposed to be tucked in his pants.
Miranda initially informed the accused that he was being
arrested for the hit-and-run incident, but later modified the
arrest to include the illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions.
As a protective search, Miranda opened the door of the vehicle
and saw another firearm (a baby armalite rifle).
In the office of the PNP, the accused surrendered other
firearms and ammunitions. The accused was not able to
present any permit to carry the said firearms.
Accuseds defenses:
1. His arrest was illegal.
2. He was under performing in accordance with a Mission
Order (MO) and memorandum of receipt.
3. Penalty for the crime was excessive and cruel, which the
Consti proscribes.
ISSUE: WON the accused was illegally arrested for the crime
illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions and the penalty of
the said crime was excessive and cruel?
RULING: Decision of the CA and RTC of conviction with the

simple illegal possession except the penalty is modified to 10 years
and 1 day, as minimum, to 18 years, 8 months and 1 day, as
maximum.
RATIO:
Defense 1
Sec 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states that
the arrest without warrant is lawful when a peace officer
arrests a person when, in the presence of the former, the
person has committed, is committing or is attempting to
commit an offense.
In the instant case, Manarang heard that the accused hit the
balut vendor and saw that the same sped off immediately. Also,
Miranda witnessed the illegal possession of firearm and
ammunitions when accused raised his hands.
The police may also undertake a protective search of the
vehicles compartment and containers that were within
grabbing distance of the accused.
Also, the arrest was also justified by a search of a moving
vehicle, in which the officers have reason or probable cause to
believe that the motorist is a law-offender.
Defense 2
There is reason to believe that the MO was only procured after
the apprehension of the accused despite it being dated
September 29, 1992 (almost 1 month before the crime was
committed).
a. The accused and his counsel did not present, produce nor
mention the existence of such MO at the time of arrest until
the presentation of evidence in court.
b. Police Supt. Durendes denied, under oath, signing the
dorsal side of the MO to acknowledge the receipt. His
surname was also misspelled in the said MO.
c. PNP Supt. Gumtang, the one who issued the said MO, did
not have the authority to do the same, as he was a mere
deputy commander and not a Unit Commander nor a Chief
of Office.
d. The accuseds name was not included in the regular
plantilla, which resulted in the inoperativeness of the MO.
Defense 3
Every law is presumed to be constitutional.
The fact that the punishment is severe (i.e., imprisonment)

does not make it cruel and unusual.
However, the Court reduced the penalty in line with the case
of People v. Lian, where the Court En Banc decided that the
indeterminate penalty for simple illegal possession of firearms
should be within 10 years and 1 day to 12 years, as minimum,

and 18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years, as maximum.
Although PD 1866 is a special law, the penalties therein
were taken from the RPC. Hence, the rules in the said
code for graduating by degrees or determining the
proper period should be applied.

Padilla v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Padilla v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Padilla v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PADILLA v.

RULING: Decision of the CA and RTC of conviction with the

The fact that the punishment is severe (i.e., imprisonment)

should be within 10 years and 1 day to 12 years, as minimum,

You might also like