Reasonable action

A person has the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is what Ben tried to invoke in his case which is very relevant now because of checkpoints currently put up by the police to enforce the Comelec gun ban.

The case involved a shooting incident where Ben was implicated by some witnesses because he was present at the scene. He was invited by police officers Dan and Rey to the headquarters after interviewing the witnesses who reported the incident through a telephone call. Initially Ben agreed to go with them. But suddenly he got into his car and sped to his house. So Dan and Rey gave chase and caught up with Ben as he opened the door of his vehicle and sprinted towards his house. Right then and there, they saw a .45 caliber firearm beside the driver’s seat and a shotgun at the back. So they seized the firearms and charged Ben with illegal possession of firearms.

Ben, on the other hand alleged that he was merely framed up by Dan and Rey who violated his rights against unreasonable search and seizure when they confiscated his firearms without a valid search warrant. So he also filed a civil suit for damages against them before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

The RTC however dismissed Ben’s complaint. It ruled that Dan and Rey were just regularly performing their duties as police officers and therefore could not be held liable for damages for their actions. Was the RTC correct?

Yes. The seizure of the firearms was justified under the plain view doctrine. Under this doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in that position are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (1) 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; (2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent or accidental; and (3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he sees may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

In this case, the police officers were in the area because that was where they caught up with Ben after the chase. They saw the firearms inside the vehicle when Ben opened the door. Since a shooting incident just took place and it was reported that Ben was involved in the incident, it was apparent to the police officers that the firearms may be evidence of the crime. Hence they were justified in seizing the firearms, under the plain view doctrine.

It was also established in this case that Ben was lawfully arrested without a warrant and that the firearms were validly seized from his possession. In fact he was charged with illegal possession of firearms and frustrated murder. Hence the RTC is right in rejecting Ben’s allegation that he was merely framed up. The police officers were presumed to be performing their duties in accordance with law. Hence they should not be held civilly liable for their actions (Abelita III vs. Doria and Ramirez, G.R. 170672, August 14, 2009).

*      *      *

Books containing compilation of my articles in Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols.I & II) are now available at 403 Sunrise Condominium Ortigas Ave., Greenhills San Juan City, Telephone 7249445. Our e-mail address: [email protected]