SR. INSP. JERRY C.

VALEROSO, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 164815 September 3, 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS:

Senior Inspector Jerry Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest allegedly for
kidnapping with ransom. He appealed and prayed that he be acquitted because the subject firearm
was obtained by the police officers in violation of his constitutional rights against illegal search
and seizure, and thus, is inadmissible. That assuming that the subject firearm was admissible in
evidence, he still could not be convicted of the crime since he was able to establish his authority
to possess the gun through the Memorandum Receipt issued by his superiors.

On petition for review, the Court affirmed in full the CA decision. Valeroso filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which was denied with finality. He is again before the Supreme Court through his
Letter-Appeal imploring the Court to once more take a contemplative reflection and deliberation
on the case, focusing on his breached constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the warrantless and unreasonable search and seizure of the firearm and
ammunition valid.

HELD:

NO. The Court is of the view that the warrantless search and seizure against the petitioner is
invalid. The Court laid down the warrantless Search incident to lawful arrest which are governed
by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, provides “a person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in
the commission of an offense without a search warrant.”

The Court noted that the purpose of the exception is that the arresting officers would have been
justified in searching the person of Valeroso, as well as the tables or drawers in front of him, for
any concealed weapon that might be used against the former. However, in the instant case, the
search was made in the locked cabinet which cannot be said to have been within Valeroso’s
immediate control/reach for him to take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used
against him, as he was pulled out of the bed; placed him outside with his hands tied; put him under
the care of another police officer while other police officers remained inside the room and
ransacked the locked cabinet where they found the subject firearm and ammunition.

The police officers did not just accidentally discover the subject firearm and ammunition, but they
actually searched for evidence against Valeroso. They exceeded the bounds of what may be
considered as an incident to a lawful arrest, nor can the warrantless search be justified under the
“plain doctrine view.”

The Court further ruled that there is no sufficient evidence to convict him as his guilt was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, Valeroso is ACQUITTED.