SC acquits man caught with gun over warrantless search

MANILA, Philippines —  The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a man of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition  as it ruled that the police had no authority to conduct a warrantless search after he tried to escape from a traffic violation.

In a 13-page decision, the SC’s Second Division said the warrantless search on Angelito Ridon could not be justified when he was apprehended for a traffic violation, which is not punishable by imprisonment.

The high tribunal said Ridon’s attempt to flee could not be considered as a circumstance to justify the search.

Ridon was arrested in 2013 while he was on a motorcycle.

Members of the Makati police flagged him for driving in the wrong direction on a one-way street. Police apprehended him when he supposedly fell off the motorcycle.

The officers alleged that when Ridon stood up, he acted like he was reaching for something from his side, prompting police to draw their guns and point these at him.

Police searched Ridon and found a .38-caliber revolver in his possession, leading to his arrest.

In 2018, a Makati court convicted Ridon of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.

Ridon appealed the ruling before the Court of Appeals, but was denied, prompting him to elevate the case to the SC.

In resolving the case, the SC said the warrantless search on Ridon was unjustified because it did not fall under the exception of being incidental to a lawful arrest.

Citing Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court, the SC said authorities could search a person for dangerous weapons, which could be used as evidence even without a search warrant only if he is lawfully arrested.

However, in Ridon’s case, the police officers’ testimony showed that they did not know Ridon was carrying a firearm when they searched him.

“Regardless of Ridon’s guilt in entering a one-way street, he was not yet under arrest when the police pursued him. Thus, they had no basis in performing a warrantless search on Angelito,” the SC ruled.

“Their decision to conduct a warrantless search was based only on a hunch – not on a reasonable suspicion,” the high court added.