ANIAG VS. COMELEC [237 SCRA 194; G.R. NO.

104961; 7 OCT
1994]
Sunday, February 01, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: In preparation for the synchronized national and local elections, the
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2323, “Gun Ban”, promulgating rules and
regulations on bearing, carrying and transporting of firearm or other deadly
weapons on security personnel or bodyguards, on bearing arms by members of
security agencies or police organizations, and organization or maintenance of
reaction forces during the election period. COMELEC also issued Resolution No.
2327 providing for the summary disqualification of candidates engaged in
gunrunning, using and transporting of firearms, organizing special strike forces,
and establishing spot checkpoints. Pursuant to the “Gun Ban”, Mr. Serrapio
Taccad, Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, wrote petitioner for
the return of the two firearms issued to him by the House of Representatives.
Petitioner then instructed his driver, Arellano, to pick up the firearms from
petitioner’s house and return them to Congress. The PNP set up a checkpoint.
When the car driven by Arellano approached the checkpoint, the PNP searched
the car and found the firearms. Arellano was apprehended and detained. He then
explained the order of petitioner. Petitioner also explained that Arellano was only
complying with the firearms ban, and that he was not a security officer or a
bodyguard. Later, COMELEC issued Resolution No.92-0829 directing the filing of
information against petitioner and Arellano for violation of the Omnibus Election
Code, and for petitioner to show cause why he should not be disqualified from
running for an elective position. Petitioner then questions the constitutionality of
Resolution No. 2327. He argues that “gunrunning, using or transporting firearms
or similar weapons” and other acts mentioned in the resolution are not within the
provisions of the Omnibus Election Code. Thus, according to petitioner, Resolution
No. 2327 is unconstitutional. The issue on the disqualification of petitioner from
running in the elections was rendered moot when he lost his bid for a seat in
Congress in the elections.
Issue: Whether or Not petitioner can be validly prosecuted for instructing his
driver to return the firearms issued to him on the basis of the evidence gathered
from the warrant less search of his car

Held: A valid search must be authorized by a search warrant issued by an

appropriate authority. However, a warrantless search is not violative of
the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants
subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to
a visual search. In the case at bar, the guns were not tucked in Arellano’s waist
nor placed within his reach, as they were neatly packed in gun cases and placed
inside a bag at the back of the car. Given these circumstances, the PNP could not
have thoroughly searched the car lawfully as well as the package without violating
the constitutional injunction. Absent any justifying circumstance specifically
pointing to the culpability of petitioner and Arellano, the search could not have
been valid.Consequently, the firearms obtained from the
warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. It was
also shown in the facts that the PNP had not informed the public of the purpose
of setting up the checkpoint. Petitioner was also not among those charged by the
PNP with violation of the Omnibus Election Code. He was not informed by the City
Prosecutor that he was a respondent in the preliminary investigation. Such
constituted a violation of his right to due process. Hence, it cannot be contended
that petitioner was fully given the opportunity to meet the accusation against him
as he was not informed that he was himself a respondent in the case. Thus, the
warrantless search conducted by the PNP is declared illegal and the firearms
seized during the search cannot be used as evidence in any proceeding against
the petitioner. Resolution No. 92-0829 is unconstitutional, and therefore, set
aside.
Aniag v COMELEC; G.R.
No. 104961; 07 Oct 1994;
237 SCRA 424
Published on 26 September 2017 in Legal Chyme by Claudine

FACTS:
In preparation for the scheduled synchronized elections, COMELEC issued a Gun Ban
resolution. Ceding to the request of the House of Representatives Sergeant-at-Arms to
return the firearms issued to him, petitioner instructed his driver to pick up the firearms
from his house and to bring the same to Congress. The driver was then apprehended at
a checkpoint after the policemen found the firearms in a bag in the truck of the car.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not petitioner’s driver acquiesced to the warrantless search.

RULING:
NO. In the face of fourteen (14) armed policemen conducting the operation, driver
Arellano being alone and a mere employee of petitioner could not have marshalled the
strength and the courage to protest against the extensive search conducted in the
vehicle. In such scenario, the “implied acquiescence,” if there was any, could not be
more than a mere passive conformity on Arellano’s part to the search, and “consent”
given under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent within the purview of
the constitutional guaranty.