PEOPLE VS.

DE GRACIA
G.R. No. 102009-10 6 JULY 1994 J. Regalado
[Art 3 - Sec. 2] Warrantless searches and seizures Created by: RDLR
Petitioners Respondents
People of the Philippines Rolando de Gracia, Chito Henson, and John Does
Recit Ready Summary
During the height of coup d’etat by the RAM-SPF against the government, various government establishments and military
camps in Metro Manila were bombarded and a there was rebellion from Nov 30 to Dec 9, 1989.

On Dec 1, Maj. Soria and his team, while in the car, conducted a surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office after receiving an
intelligence report that it is occupied by the RAM. A crowd was watching the bombardment in Camp Aguinaldo when a group
of 5 men walked towards the surveillance team. When the team was hurrying to leave, the men drew their guns, and fired at
them wounding the driver. Consequently, on Dec 5, a searching team raided the office, without warrant, and found firearms
and explosives. They saw De Gracia in the office of Col. Mantillano, holding a C-4 and suspiciously peeping through a hole.
He was then arrested and convicted by the trial court with Illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion.

Issue is W/N there was a valid search and seizure.

Although not raised as an issue, the court tackled such considering the gravity of the charge against De Gracia. The search
was VALID as it falls under the exception of EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES:

A. Probable Cause: (1) intelligence report that the building is used by the RAM, (2) when a surveillance was
conducted, they were fired at by men coming from the building, and (3) when they raided the place, they were
refused entry despite their requests forcing them to break inside. Thus, they had reasonable ground to believe that a
crime was committed.
B. No opportunity to apply for and secure search warrant because when the raid was conducted, the court was
closed: there was general chaos and disorder because of the simultaneous and intense firing within the office’s
vicinity near Camp Aguinaldo, which was under attack by the rebels. Thus, courts in the surrounding area was
closed and houses were deserted.

Facts of the Case

● [CONTEXT] There is a coup d’etat staged by ultra-rightist headed by the Reform the Armed Forces Movement-
Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SPF) against the government. (transition years under P. Cory Aquino)
o Government establishments and military camps in Metro Manila were bombarded
▪ PH Marines occupied Villamor Airbase
▪ Scout Rangers occupied PH Army HQ, Army Ops Center, and Channel 4
▪ Elements of the PH Army occupied Greenhills
o There was a rebellion from Nov 30 to Dec 9, 1989
● Rolando de Gracia was charged with illegal possession of ammunition and explosives in furtherance of
rebellion (convicted) and attempted homicide (acquitted).
● RECORDS:
o In Dec 1, 1989, Maj. Soria with his team was in the car conducting surveillance of the Eurocar Sales office
at EDSA because they received an intelligence report that it is occupied by RAM-SPFs as a communication
command.
o A crowd was gathered near the office watching the bombardment in Camp Aguinaldo when a group of 5
men walked towards the surveillance team. The team started the car and was about to leave when the men
drew their guns, and fired at them wounding Sgt. Sagario (driver).
o In Dec 5, 1989, a searching team raided the office, without a search warrant, and found firearms and
ammunitions.
o They saw De Gracia in the office of Col. Matillano, holding a C-4 and suspiciously peeping through a hole.
● DE GRACIA’S VERSION:
o He is not in the Office at that time but in a small nipa adjacent to the building
o He was made to get out of his house and lie on the ground face down with the janitors
o He only worked for Col. Matillano
o He believes that the witnesses only testified against him since he is affiliated with the Col. and they want to
revenge against the latter.

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
No warrant was secured because of so much disorder: He cannot be held guilty since
1. Bombardment by rebel forces in Camp Aguinaldo 1. He does not have physical or
 2. Simultaneous firing within the vicinity of the Eurocar constructive possession of the
Office firearms/ammunitions.
3. Courts were closed
Issues Ruling
1. W/N intent to possess is essential element of the offense under PD No. 1866? Yes
2. W/N there is a valid search and seizure? (not raised as issue but nonetheless tackled by court) YES
3. W/N the possession of the firearms and explosives were for the purposes of rebellion? Yes
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. While mere possession without criminal intent is enough to convict a person for illegal possession of firearms, it must
be shown that there is intent to possess on the part of accused. He is indeed guilty because when raiding team
entered the building, de Gracia was holding the explosive in evidence. As a former soldier, knowledgeable of
how such explosives work, he cannot feign ignorance of possessing it especially that the office is not involved,
directly or indirectly, with trade of ammunitions and firearms.

2. It falls under the exceptions: EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES

a. Probable Cause: (1) intelligence report that the building is used by the RAM, (2) when a surveillance was
conducted, they were fired at by men coming from the building, and (3) when they raided the place, they
were refused entry despite their requests forcing them to break inside. Thus, they had reasonable ground to
believe that a crime was committed.
b. No opportunity to apply for and secure search warrant because when the raid was conducted, the
court was closed: there was general chaos and disorder because of the simultaneous and intense firing
within the office’s vicinity near Camp Aguinaldo, which was under attack by the rebels. Thus, courts in the
surrounding area was closed and houses were deserted.

3. Illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion under PD 1866 is different from Rebellion per se as they are
penalized by distinct statutes (PD and RPC). But it shall give rise to separate prosecutions (no double jeopardy). It
was wrong for the lower court to insert the provision of RPC (rebellion) in prosecuting crime under special law.
Hence, it was erroneous as legal basis for the recommendation of executive clemency. Moreover, the nature and
quantity of the firearms and explosives does not show that it was for personal defense but for offensive
operations.

Disposition
Trial Court Judgment AFFIRMED. Basis for recommendation of executive clemency DELETED.
Separate Opinions
N/A