FACTS:

Elenita Fajardo and Zaldy Valerio were charged with violation of P.D. No. 1866 for possession of prohibited firearms and ammunition. It was stipulated during pre-trial that the search warrant used to seize the firearms was valid, and the accused were not licensed firearm holders. The events leading to the filing of the information involved armed men firing guns at Fajardo's residence, Valerio firing at the police officers, and the discovery of firearms and ammunition in Fajardo's house. Fajardo and Valerio argued that the search warrant was defective. The search warrant was based on confidential information received by Police Supt. Edgardo Mendoza. Fajardo disowned the confiscated items, claiming they belonged to her brother. The RTC found Fajardo and Valerio liable for illegal possession of firearms. Fajardo appealed to the CA, which agreed with the factual findings but disagreed with the RTC's conclusions of law regarding the validity of the search warrant. The CA declared the firearms and explosives seized as inadmissible evidence but admitted the two receivers recovered under the plain view doctrine. Fajardo and Valerio were convicted and filed a petition with the Supreme Court. The review before the Supreme Court pertains only to the conviction for illegal possession of a part of a firearm. Fajardo argues for an acquittal, claiming that the discovery of the receivers does not fall under the plain view doctrine and that there was no evidence connecting her to the throwing of the receivers.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the seizure of the receivers of the .45 caliber pistol falls within the purview of the plain view doctrine.

2. Whether the lower receivers of a cal. 45 are admissible as evidence against the petitioner.

3. Whether the petitioner can be held liable for illegal possession of the receivers.

4. Whether the prosecution failed to present concrete evidence to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Whether the gun allegedly seen tucked in petitioner's waistband was sufficiently identified.

6. Whether the petitioner conspired with Valerio in committing illegal possession of part of a firearm.

RULING:

1. The seizure of the receivers of the .45 caliber pistol falls within the purview of the plain view doctrine. The requirements for the plain view doctrine to apply have been met in this case. First, the law enforcement officers were in a justified position and had probable cause to surround the house. Second, SPO2 Nava saw Valerio throw suspicious objects from the top of the house on two different instances. Lastly, based on earlier sightings of Valerio holding a pistol, SPO2 Nava had reasonable grounds to believe that the things thrown might be contraband items or evidence of the offense they were suspected of committing. The receivers were seized in plain view and therefore, are admissible as evidence.

2. Yes, the lower receivers of a cal. 45 are admissible as evidence against the petitioner. The law only requires that the law enforcer observes that the seized item may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. Therefore, the liability for their possession falls only on Zaldy Valerio and not on the petitioner.

3. The Supreme Court acquitted the petitioner on the ground of reasonable doubt. The court found that there was no evidence pointing to the petitioner's participation, knowledge, or consent in the actions of Valerio. The prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, as mere speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for the required proof. The gun allegedly seen tucked in petitioner's waistband was not sufficiently identified and it was impossible to match it with any of the seized receivers. There was also no evidence indubitably proving that the petitioner conspired with Valerio in committing the illegal possession of parts of a firearm.

PRINCIPLES:

• The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures is recognized in the Constitution. This right is inviolable and any evidence obtained in violation of this right shall be inadmissible.

• Exceptions to the exclusionary rule include: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; and (5) waiver of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

• The plain view doctrine applies when: (a) the law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position to view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item observed may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.

• The possession of a firearm or part thereof without the authority or license to possess it constitutes illegal possession (People v. De Gracia).

• Mere possession, without criminal intent, is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm (People v. De Gracia).

• Intent to possess must be shown, regardless of any other criminal or felonious intent, to convict a person for illegal possession (People v. De Gracia).

• Temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless possession or control of a firearm does not constitute a violation of the law prohibiting possession (People v. De Gracia).

• The guilt of an accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt, whether the offense is punishable under the Revised Penal Code or a special law.

• In illegal possession of a firearm, the existence of the firearm and the absence of the corresponding license must be proven.

• For a successful conviction of illegal possession of part of a firearm, the existence of the part and the lack of license for the corresponding firearm must be proven.

• The lack of authority to possess a firearm can be proven through testimony or certification by a law enforcement officer.