THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 234333. January 8, 2018.]

MILKESEDEC SIOCO , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,

respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated
January 8, 2018 , which reads as follows: SDAaTC

"G.R. No. 234333 (Milkesedec Sioco v. People of the Philippines) — For

review in the present Petition for Review on Certiorari led under Rule 45 of the Revised
Rules of Court are the Decision 1 and Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals dated May
31, 2017 and September 11, 2017, respectively, a rming the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 226, Quezon City, dated February 5, 2016 in Criminal Case No. Q14-
11862, which convicted petitioner Milkesedec Sioco of the crime of illegal possession
of rearm and ammunition punishable under Section 28 (a) and (e) of Republic Act No.
10591, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation
Act."

Facts

At around 7:00 p.m. of November 24, 2014, the Barangay Hall of Barangay
Batasan Hills, Quezon City received a call from a concerned citizen that there was a man
along Kaibigan Street, Kalayaan B, Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City, carrying a gun.
Three of the on-duty Barangay Peace and Security O cers (BPSO), Antonio B. Gutierrez
(Gutierrez), Jonathan Lising (Lising), and Gil Palma (Palma), went to the area to
investigate. When they arrived, a woman pointed to a man, whom she claimed had a gun
tucked in his waist. When Gutierrez approached the man, who later turned out to be
Milkesedec Sioco (petitioner), he noticed something protruding from the latter's
waistline and when he checked, it turned out to be a .38 caliber "paltik." The three then
arrested petitioner and brought him to the Barangay Hall. After which, they went to the
Quezon City General Hospital for medical examination, and then brought him to the
Police Station for investigation. Finally, they went to the City Prosecutor's O ce for
inquest proceedings.
Hence, an Information for illegal possession of rearm and ammunitions
punishable under Section 28 (a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 10591, otherwise known as
the "Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act" against petitioner was
filed, to wit:
That on or about the 24th day of November, 2014, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under
his custody and control one (1) caliber .38 Revolver 'Paltik' loaded with ve (5)
ammunitions, without rst having secured the necessary license/permit issued
by the proper authorities.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
During arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the offense. During trial, the
prosecution presented the testimonies of Gutierrez and Palma. On the other hand,
petitioner presented himself as sole defense witness.
Petitioner presented a different narrative of his arrest. He averred that on the
night of the arrest, while he and other persons were playing video karera near his house,
barangay o cials suddenly arrested them and brought them to the Barangay Hall,
where they were told that somebody called the Barangay Office and informed there that
a certain male was carrying a gun. Petitioner was then brought to a small room where
he was forced to point to a gun and admit that it was his. Thereafter, he was brought to
the Prosecutor's O ce where he was again forced to admit ownership of the gun
allegedly recovered from his possession.

Ruling of the RTC

On February 5, 2016, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
illegal possession of rearm and ammunitions. The dispositive portion of the RTC
Decision 4 reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the prosecution having
proved the GUILT of the accused Milkesedec Sioco beyond reasonable doubt,
this Court nds the said accused GUILTY and is hereby CONVICTED of the
offense of violation of Republic Act No. 10591, Section 28, paragraph (a) in
relation to paragraph (e), thereof and is thereby condemned to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Eight (8) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor in medium period as MINIMUM to Eleven (11) years and Four (4)
months of prision mayor in its maximum period as MAXIMUM and to pay the
costs of suit.
SO ORDERED. 5

Ruling of the CA

On May 31, 2017, the CA a rmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA rejected
petitioner's contention that his arrest was illegal. The CA determined that petitioner has
waived to question the validity of his arrest because of his failure to timely question the
same. In any case, the CA resolved that the seizure was valid based on the "plain view"
doctrine as the gun was readily visible because it was protruding and not totally
covered by petitioner's shirt. acEHCD

Contrary to petitioner's claim that the respondent failed to ascertain the identity
of the gun allegedly seized because the custodial link from the time it was con scated
up to the moment it was endorsed to the investigator was not established, the CA
adjudged that the identity of the gun seized was positively veri ed as the parties
already stipulated that the custody over the con scated items was with SPO1
Esperanza. In the words of the CA, "no one aside from SPO1 Esperanza, took hold of
the seized items or had custody over the same after they were delivered to him." 6
Hence, the present Petition, which argues that the appellate court committed a
reversible error in a rming petitioner's conviction despite the patent illegality of his
arrest and the respondent's failure to positively identify the rearm and ammunitions
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 allegedly confiscated from him.

Our Ruling

After a perusal of the records, this Court resolved to deny the Petition for Review
o n Certiorari as the petition failed to su ciently show that the Court of Appeals
committed any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals dated May 31, 2017 and September 11, 2017, respectively, as to warrant the
exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
In general, searches and seizure must be executed with a judicial warrant, and any
evidence obtained there from shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
However, this rule is subject to exceptions, namely:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. Search of evidence in "plain view";
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances. 7
The factual circumstances of the present case fall squarely under the plain view
doctrine. Based on the plain view doctrine, warrantless search is valid if the following
requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement o cer in search of the evidence has a prior
justi cation for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately
apparent to the o cer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. In the case at bar, the gun was in plain view
and readily visible as it was protruding and not totally covered by petitioner's shirt.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the search and arrest were illegal,
petitioner has waived to question the legality of his arrest. Basic is the rule that an
accused may be estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move
for the quashing of the Information against him before his arraignment. Any objection
involving the arrest or the procedure in the court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the
person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise the objection
is deemed waived. 8 Here, the petitioner never raised the illegality of his arrest before
his arraignment and in fact, 9 as the records reveal, even participated in the proceedings
before the trial court.
Anent petitioner's contention that the gun allegedly seized from him is
inadmissible due to respondent's failure to ascertain the links in its custody, from the
time it was seized up to the moment it was endorsed to the investigator, this argument
deserves no merit. As correctly observed by the CA, the matter regarding the identity of
the gun seized and the identity of the person who had custody of the same were
stipulated upon by the parties, i.e., the parties stipulated that no one aside from SPO1
Esperanza had custody over the same after they were delivered to him. 1 0 Nevertheless,
since petitioner's arrest is a sanctioned warrantless arrest pursuant to the plain view
doctrine and since the gun seized from him was effected from a valid warrantless
search incidental to a lawful arrest, the objects seized from petitioner as a result of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 warrantless search are admissible in evidence.
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . The Decision and Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38592 dated May 31, 2017 and September 11, 2017,
respectively are AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla with Associate Justices Andres B.

Reyes, Jr. and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring; rollo, pp. 28-37.

2. Rollo, pp. 39-40.

3. Rollo, pp. 28-29.

4. Penned by Judge Manuel B. Sta. Cruz, Jr.; rollo, pp. 53-57.

5. Rollo, p. 31.
6. Rollo, p. 34.

7. Miclat, Jr. v. People, 672 Phil. 205-206, August 31, 2011.

8. Miclat, Jr. v. People, 672 Phil. 203, August 31, 2011.

9. Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 729, September 4, 2009.

10. Rollo, p. 34.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com