Abenes v. CAGR No.

15632014 February 2007

Austria-Martinez, J.

Facts:

Rodol f o Abenes , a bar angaychai r man, was char ged wi t h i l l e g a l
p o s s e s s i o n o f h i g h p o w e r e d f i r e a r m a n d i t s ammunitions during the
election period. Two Informations werefiled for (1) illegal possession of firearms and its
ammunitions;and (2) violation of the OmnibusElection Code.The f i r ear m was
conf i s cat edf r om Abenes at a checkpoi nt wherein his vehicle was stoppedand he was
asked to alight thesame for routine inspection. The police saw the firearm tucked inh i s
wa i s t , a n d a s k e d h i m t o produce a license for it. WhenAbenes could not
produce one,t h e p o l i c e c o n f i s c a t e d t h e firearm. It was then found
thatAbenes was not a registered nor a licensed firearm holder.The trial court then
convictedAbenes on both charges. Abenesappealed to the CA alleging thatthe checkpoint was
not shown tohave been legally set up, and thathis constitutional right against unlawful search
and seizure wasviolated. The CA affirmed thetrial court.

Issue:

W/N the checkpoint was legallyset up.
W/N Abenes constitutional rightagai ns t unl awf ul s ear ch and seizure had been violated.

Ruling:

Y E S . T h e p r o d u c t i o n o f a mission order is not necessary inv i e w o f t h e
f a c t t h a t t h e checkpoint was established threedays before the May 11,
1998elections; and the circumstancesu n d e r wh i c h t h e p o l i c e me n f o u n d t h e g u n
wa r r a n t e d i t s seizure without a warrant (plainview).

N O . T h e l a w e n f o r c e m e n t officers lawfully made an initiali n t r u s i o n
b e c a u s e o f t h e enforcement of the Gun Ban andwere properly in a position fromwhich
they particularly viewedthe area. In the course of suchlawful intrusion, the
policemencame inadvertently across a pieceo f e v i d e n c e i n c r i m i n a t i n g Abenes
where they saw the guntucked into his waist. The gunwas in plain view and
discoveredi n a d v e r t e n t l y wh e n Ab e n e s alighted from the vehicle.However, there is
insufficientevidence that the firearm Abenescarried had no license. Thus, for f ai l ur e of t he
pr os ecut i on t o prove beyond reasonable doubt t h a t Ab e n e s wa s c a r r y i n g
a firearm without prior authority, license or permit, the latter must be excul pat ed f r om
cr i mi nal l i a b i l i t y u n d e r t h e i l l e g a l p o s s e s s i o n o f f i r e a r ms
l a w. H o w e v e r , A b e n e s i s s t i l l convi ct ed f or vi ol at i on of t he Comelec
Gun Ban