GEROCHE vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 179080

November 26, 2014

FACTS:

Baleriano Limbag (Baleriano) testified that the crime happened around 10:00 o’clock in the evening of May 14, 1989 inside his house. He roused from sleep when petitioners, who were not armed with search warrant, suddenly entered the house by destroying the main door. The petitioners mauled him, striking with a garand rifle, which caused his injuries. They looked for firearms but instead found and took away his airgun.

It was alleged in the Information that petitioner Geroche was a Barangay Captain while petitioners Garde and Marfil were members of Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU).

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of the crime of Violation of Domicile under Article 128 of the Revised Penal Code (YES)

HELD:

YES, the petitioners are guilty of the crime of Violation of Domicile.

In their judicial admissions, in their testimony before the open court as well as in the pleadings they filed, neither Geroche denied that he was a barangay captain nor Garde and Marfil refuted that they were CAFGU members. In holding such positions, they are considered as public officers/employees.

*The above case digest is only a guide. I highly recommend that you read the FULL TEXT.

GALVANTE vs. CASIMIRO

G.R. No. 162808
April 22, 2008

FACTS:

Respondents pointed their firearms to petitioner; went near the owner type jeep owned by petitioner and conducted a search. Respondents saw a .38  pistol under the floormat of the jeep and asked petitioner of the MR of the firearm. Due to fear that respondents'  long arms were still pointed to them, petitioner searched his wallet and gave the asked document. Immediately, the policemen (respondents) left  them without saying anything bringing with them the firearm.

The RTC found that "the action of the policemen who conducted the warrantless search in spite of the absence of any circumstances justifying the same intruded into the privacy of the accused and the security of his property.

Unaware of the RTC decision, Ombudsman  dismissed the criminal complaint for illegal search. It found that the allegations of the complainant failed to establish the factual basis of the complaint, it appearing that the incident stemmed from a valid warrantless arrest. 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Ombudsman acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and/ or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint of the petitioner. (NO) 

HELD:

There is no grave abuse of discretion. The complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The conduct of a warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or any other special law. What the RPC punishes are only two forms of searches: Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained, and Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses.

Petitioner did not allege any of the elements of the foregoing felonies; rather, he accused private respondents of conducting a search on his vehicle without being armed with a valid warrant. This situation, while lamentable, is not covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC.

The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search conducted on his vehicle is civil, under Article 32, in relation to Article 2219 (6) and (10) of the Civil Code.

Ombudsman properly dismissed the complaint for illegal search, although the reason for dismissing (valid warrantless arrest) the same is rather off the mark. The same should have been dismissed by the reason that it is not cognizable by the Ombudsman as illegal search is not a criminal offense.

*The above case digest is only a guide. I highly recommend that you read the FULL TEXT.