RODOLFO ABENES v.

COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 156320 Feb. 14, 2007 Austria-Martinez, J.:

Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an officer who has a right to
be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.
The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement
officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from
which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is
inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be
evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

FACTS:
Rodolfo Abenes, a barangay chairman, was charged with illegal possession of high powered
firearm and its ammunitions during the election period. Two Informations were filed for (1)
illegal possession of firearms and its ammunitions; and (2) violation of the Omnibus Election
Code. The firearm was confiscated from Abenes at a checkpoint wherein his vehicle was
stopped and he was asked to alight the same for routine inspection. The police saw the firearm
tucked in his waist, and asked him to produce a license for it. When Abenes could not produce
one, the police confiscated the firearm. It was then found that Abenes was not a registered nor
a licensed firearm holder. The trial court then convicted Abenes on both charges.

Abenes appealed to the CA alleging that the checkpoint was not shown to have been legally set
up, and thathis constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure was violated. The CA
affirmed the trial court.

ISSUES;
1. Whether the checkpoint was legally set up.
2. Whether Abenes’ constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure had been violated.

RULING:
YES. The production of a mission order is not necessary in view of the fact that the checkpoint
was established three days before the May 11, 1998 elections; and the circumstances under
which the policemen found the gun warranted its seizure without a warrant pursuant to
plainview doctrine.

NO. The law enforcement officers lawfully made an initial intrusion because of the enforcement
of the Gun Ban and were properly in a position from which they particularly viewed the area. In
the course of such lawful intrusion, the policemen came inadvertently across a piece of
evidence incriminating Abenes where they saw the gun tucked into his waist. The gun was in
plain view and discovered inadvertently when Abenes alighted from the vehicle. However, there
is insufficient evidence that the firearm Abenes carried had no license. Thus, for failure of the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Abenes was carrying a firearm without prior
authority, license or permit, the latter must be exculpated from criminal liability under the illegal
possession of firearms law. However, Abenes is still convicted for violation of the Comelec Gun
Ban.
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an officer who has a right to
be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.
The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement
officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from
which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is
inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be
evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.