BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
ROEL PABLO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 253504 (FEBRUARY 1, 2023): APPLICATION OF SECTION 28 (A) IN RELATION TO SECTION 28 (E) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 105915 (COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT) AND RESTATEMENT OF THE “STOP-AND-FRISK” RULE
Petitioner Roel Pablo, along with Alvin Teriapel, were flagged down by police officers along Payapa Street, Villareal, Barangay Gulod, Novaliches while doing anti-criminality operation. Police officers flagged the two for violation of Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009 for not wearing the requisite safety helmets and for violation of Land Transportation and Traffic Code for tampering license plate and driving motor vehicle without the required driving license. When frisked, police officers recovered Magnum Caliber .22 pistol loaded with eight (8) pieces of live ammunition from Pablo’s waistline while nine (9) pieces of Magnum Caliber .22 ammunition were recovered from Teriapel’s right pocket. While on trial, Terapiel jumped bail. Pablo was convicted of violating Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e) of the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act (RA 10591) and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor medium as minimum to 11 years and 4 months of prision mayor maximum as maximum. Terapiel was convicted of violation Section 28 (g) of RA 10591 and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor minimum as minimum to 7 years and 4 months of prision mayor minimum as maximum. Ter Pablo appealed to the Court of Appeals but dismissed the same, hence, a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the conviction of Pablo for Illegal Possession of Firearm or violation of Section 28 (a) of RA 10591 was correct since the elements are present: (1) the existence of subject firearm; (2) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it, wherein ownership is not required; mere possession is sufficient. Also, the Court held that the trial court correctly imposed a penalty one (1) degree higher since circumstances under Section 28 (e) is present, i.e., firearm was loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine.
The Court held “In this case, the firearm and ammunition were identified by the prosecution’s witnesses in open court as those found on petitioner’s person. Further the prosecution provided the proper certification to show that petitioner did not have the corresponding license for the firearm and ammunition. It was also established by the prosecution’s witnesses that the firearm retrieved was loaded with eight (8) pieces of live ammunition.”
Regarding the manner of search made on Pablo, the Supreme Court held that while it cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that it may constitute as search incidental to a lawful arrest since the contemplated violations, i.e., Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009 and Land Transportation and Traffic Code, were punishable by fine only pursuant to the rulings in Polangcos vs. People, G.R. No. 239866 (September 11, 2019), and People vs. Cristobal, G.R. No. 234207 (June 10, 2019), it may nevertheless fall under the “stop -and-frisk” rule.
“Thus, case law instructs ‘that a “stop-and-frisk” search should be allowed only when attended by the following limited circumstances: (1) it should be allowed only on the basis of the police officer’s reasonable suspicion, in light of his or her experience, that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he/she is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous; (2) the search must only be a carefully limited search of the outer clothing; and (3) conducted for the purpose of discovering weapons which might be used to assault him/her or other persons in the area.”
In the instant case, the obtaining circumstances lead the Court to conclude that there was a genuine reason for the police officers to conduct a “stop-and-frisk” search on petitioner.
First, to recall, the police officers had a genuine reason to flag down petitioner after observing that he and Teriapel were not wearing helmets. Second, the plate number of their motorcycle had been tampered with. Third, upon flagging down petitioner and Teriapel, the officers properly introduced themselves as police officers before questioning them and asking for their driver’s licenses, which petitioner and Teriapel failed to produce. Fourth, petitioner also failed to produce motorcycle documentation when asked. Lastly, on the night of the arrest, the police officers had been conducting an anti-criminality operation.”