FACTS:

On October 26, 1992, petitioner Robin Padilla was found in possession of high-powered firearms, including a revolver, a rifle, and a pistol, along with ammunitions. He was charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions, arrested, and granted bail. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced, and his bail bond was cancelled. He filed motions for reconsideration and for review, with an application for bail. The Solicitor-General initially sought to deny the bail application but later filed a manifestation praying for petitioner's acquittal. The People presented evidence that on the same day the firearms were discovered, witnesses heard a screeching sound followed by a vehicle hitting something. They investigated and found the vehicle occupied by petitioner.

The case involves an incident of a hit and run accident in which a vehicle hit someone and fled the scene. The victim reported the incident to the police and attempted to chase after the vehicle. He noted down the plate number of the vehicle and relayed this information to the police. The police immediately mobilized patrol vehicles to intercept the vehicle. The vehicle was intercepted, the driver identified as petitioner Robin Padilla, and he was instructed to alight from the vehicle. A gun tucked in his waist was revealed, confiscated by one of the police officers, and petitioner was arrested for the hit and run incident. The vehicle had a dangling plate number and was damaged.

The case involves the arrest of petitioner Robin Padilla without a warrant. He was arrested by police officers after being pursued by a private person who witnessed him commit a hit and run offense. The private person reported the incident to the police and chased the petitioner's vehicle on a motorcycle to apprehend him. The police officers, receiving the report, positioned themselves near the bridge and effected the actual arrest of the petitioner.

The case involves the appellant who was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries and damage to property. The appellant allegedly hit the complainant's vehicle with his motorcycle, causing injuries and damage. The appellant fled the scene, prompting the complainant's brother to seek the aid of the police. The police apprehended the appellant without a warrant, citing the urgent need to render aid or take action. The trial court convicted the appellant, and the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his arrest was illegal since it was made without a warrant.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the arrest of the petitioner was legal despite the arresting officers not being present at the scene of the hit and run incident.

2. Whether the warrantless arrest of the petitioner for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition was justified.

3. Whether the seizure of the firearms and ammunition without a search warrant is justified under the doctrines of plain view, search incidental to a lawful arrest, or search of a moving vehicle.

4. Whether the petitioner's defense that he is an appointed civilian agent authorized to possess and carry the subject firearms and ammunition is valid.

5. Whether the subject firearms were intended for theatrical purposes.

6. Whether the subject firearms were owned by the Presidential Security Group.

7. Whether the Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt were left at home.

8. Whether the certification from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of illegal possession of firearm.

9. Whether the penalty for simple illegal possession of firearm under P.D. 1866 is cruel and excessive in contravention of the Constitution.

10. The issue in this case is whether the penalty for the offense of simple illegal possession of firearms and ammunition should be determined based on the rules in the Revised Penal Code or in the special law, Presidential Decree No. 1866.

RULING:

1. The arrest of the petitioner was legal. The fact that the arresting officers were not present at the scene of the hit and run incident does not affect the propriety of the arrest. The arresting officer, who witnessed the incident, reported it to the police and sought their assistance in apprehending the petitioner. This was a prudent action considering that the police are better trained and equipped to handle the arrest of a potentially resistant suspect. The collaboration between law enforcers and private citizens is encouraged in curbing lawlessness.

2. The warrantless arrest of the petitioner for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition was justified. The arrest was made after the police officers witnessed the petitioner's Pajero, with a dangling plate number and dented hood and railings, approaching the scene. This constituted personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the petitioner's vehicle was involved in the hit and run incident. Additionally, the petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto with possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammunition in the presence of a peace officer.

3. The seizure of the firearms and ammunition without a search warrant is justified under the doctrines of plain view, search incidental to a lawful arrest, and search of a moving vehicle. The objects were immediately apparent to the police when they took a casual glance at the petitioner's vehicle, and objects whose possession are prohibited by law inadvertently found in plain view are subject to seizure without a warrant. The seizure can also be justified as a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the lawful arrest of the petitioner allowed the police officers to undertake a protective search of the passenger compartment and containers within petitioner's immediate control in the vehicle. Additionally, a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is constitutionally permissible when the officers have reasonable or probable cause to believe that either the motorist is a law offender or the contents of the vehicle are instruments or proceeds of a criminal offense.

4. The petitioner's defense that he is an appointed civilian agent authorized to possess and carry the firearms and ammunition is not valid. To establish illegal possession of a firearm, it must be proven that the accused does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess the firearm. The existence of the subject firearms was proven through a valid warrantless search, and the prosecution convincingly proved that the petitioner did not have the necessary license or permit. The petitioner's alleged Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt were considered mere afterthoughts and were issued under suspicious circumstances. The petitioner failed to present these documents during the preliminary investigation or during trial to prove his authority to possess the firearms.

5. The Court ruled that petitioner's alternative excuses regarding the subject firearms were invalid. The petitioner failed to present the Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt which could have supported his claims. The authenticity and validity of the Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt were also questioned, with the prosecution presenting evidence that they were issued by unauthorized sources. The Court further noted that the petitioner's name did not appear in the relevant lists of personnel, which should justify the issuance of a Mission Order. The Court also highlighted that the confiscated firearms were not licensed or registered in the name of the petitioner.

6. Yes, the certification from the PNP FEO attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of illegal possession of firearm. The fact that the petitioner does not have the license or permit to possess a firearm was overwhelmingly proven by the prosecution. Additionally, the certification may even be dispensed with in light of the evidence that certain firearms cannot be licensed to a civilian.

7. No, the penalty for simple illegal possession of a firearm under P.D. 1866 is not cruel and excessive. The severity of a penalty does not ipso facto make it cruel and unusual. It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. The constitutionality of P.D. 1866 has been upheld twice by the Court. The question of the wisdom of the prescribed penalty should be addressed to Congress, not the courts.

8. The Court held that the penalty for the offense of simple illegal possession of firearms and ammunition should be determined based on the rules in the Revised Penal Code. The penalty for this offense is the medium period of the complex penalty under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, which is 18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years. Hence, the maximum of the range of the indeterminate sentence shall be the penalty to be actually imposed, while the minimum shall be taken from any period of the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period.

PRINCIPLES:

• A suspect cannot defeat an arrest in a public place for want of a warrant if the police are confronted by an urgent need to render aid or take action.

• Exigent circumstances, such as hot pursuit, a fleeing suspect, a moving vehicle, a public place, and nighttime raining, can justify a warrantless arrest.

• Any objection, defect, or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea. Failure to quash the information, participation in the trial, and applying for bail can constitute waiver of such irregularities and defects.

• The five instances when a warrantless search and seizure of property is valid include a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, seizure of evidence in plain view, search of a moving vehicle, consented warrantless search, and customs search.

• Objects whose possession is prohibited by law inadvertently found in plain view are subject to seizure even without a warrant.

• A search incidental to a lawful arrest is justified if the item to be searched is within the arrestee's custody or area of immediate control, and the search is contemporaneous with the arrest.

• A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is constitutionally permissible when the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe that either the motorist is a law offender or the contents of the vehicle are instruments or proceeds of a criminal offense.

• To establish illegal possession of a firearm, it must be proven that the accused does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess the firearm. Mere afterthoughts like Mission Orders and Memorandum Receipts are not enough to prove the accused's authority to possess the firearms.

• A person claiming innocence should present supporting evidence at the earliest opportunity to save himself from a public trial.

• Mission Orders and Memorandum Receipts should be issued by authorized sources and should have proper certifications.

• Only individuals included in the regular plantilla of a government agency involved in law enforcement and are receiving regular compensation can be issued a Mission Order.

• Firearms should be licensed and registered in the name of the owner.

• Certification from the PNP FEO attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm is sufficient to prove illegal possession of firearm.

• The severity of a penalty does not automatically make it cruel and unusual, as long as it is within statutory limits.

• The constitutionality of a law enjoys a presumption of constitutionality, and the burden of proving its invalidity lies with the appellant.

• The penalty for the offense of simple illegal possession of firearms and ammunition should be determined based on the rules in the Revised Penal Code, even if such offense is covered by a special law.

• The penalty for simple illegal possession of firearms and ammunition is the medium period of the complex penalty under the special law, Presidential Decree No. 1866.

• The range of the indeterminate sentence for simple illegal possession of firearms and ammunition shall be from the minimum penalty next lower in degree to the maximum penalty to be actually imposed.