FACTS:

Accused-appellant Herofil N. Olarte was separately charged for illegal possession of a hand grenade and an unlicensed pistol (which turned out to be a replica). He was arrested by police officers PO2 Intud and PO2 Monilar during a monitoring operation in response to reports of a lone gunman responsible for several robberies in Cagayan de Oro City. Accused-appellant, also known as "Boy Solo," matched the suspect in the CCTV footages and was seen pulling out a firearm. He was chased and apprehended along with his companions. During the arrest, a replica pistol, a hand grenade, a screwdriver, and a sachet of suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride were found in his possession. The hand grenade was later identified as an M61 hand grenade with an M204A2 fuse assembly. Accused-appellant claimed that he was wrongfully arrested by unidentified individuals who forced him to go with them.

The Hall of Justice where the records of accused-appellant's case were stored was burned down in a fire, erasing his original information, arraignment, and some evidence. He was re-arraigned, and the prosecution moved to amend the information to correct the marking on the grenade's fuse assembly. The RTC found accused-appellant guilty of illegal possession of a hand grenade but dismissed the case for illegal possession of a replica pistol. The CA upheld the RTC's decision, stating that accused-appellant's arrest was valid and there was sufficient evidence to prove his guilt. Accused-appellant appealed, challenging the legality of his arrest and arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Accused-appellant was charged with illegal possession of explosives. The prosecution claimed that he was caught pulling out a replica firearm, leading to his lawful arrest and the subsequent discovery of a hand grenade in his possession. Accused-appellant questioned the validity of his arrest, arguing that it was solely based on his physical attributes and not on any valid ground. He also contended that the hand grenade should be deemed inadmissible as evidence because it was seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. Additionally, accused-appellant raised concerns about the identity and integrity of the hand grenade presented in court, as the markings did not match those stated in the original information. The amendment made to the information to correct the grenade's fuse assembly marking was seen as prejudicial to accused-appellant as it affected the very identity of the grenade.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused is valid.

2. Whether the seizure of items in the accused's possession incidental to the arrest is valid.

3. Whether the CCTV footage can be considered as a valid basis for the accused's arrest.

4. Whether the trial court properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses.

5. Whether the accused failed to rebut the testimonies of the arresting officers.

6. Whether the illegal arrest of the accused affects the validity of the conviction.

7. Whether the amendment to the information was formal or substantial.

8. Whether the amendment violated the requirements of due process.

9. Whether the model number on the hand grenade is an element of illegal possession of explosives that cannot be amended.

10. Whether the allegations in the original and amended informations sufficiently cover the element of the contraband's existence and accused-appellant's lack of license.

11. Whether the chain of custody rule applies to an undetonated grenade, which is a structured object.

12. Whether the absence of a marking on the grenade affects its evidentiary value.

13. Whether or not the RTC failed to conduct a five-day continuous trial as required by the rules.

14. Whether or not the RTC's judgment convicting the accused was rendered in violation of his right to due process.

RULING:

1. The warrantless arrest of the accused is valid because it falls under the concept of in flagrante delicto arrest. The accused was caught in the act or attempting to commit a crime, and such act was done in the presence of the arresting officers.

2. The seizure of items in the accused's possession incidental to the arrest is valid. It is a necessary measure to protect the arresting officers from harm and prevent the accused from destroying evidence within reach.

3. The CCTV footage can be considered as a valid basis for the accused's arrest. While reliable information alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest, the rule only requires that the accused perform some overt act indicating the commission, actual commission, or attempt to commit a crime.

4. The trial court properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses. The assessment of credibility is within the province of the trial court, as it is in a unique position to observe the deportment of the witnesses while testifying. The appellate court is not able to observe the same. The trial court's assessments and conclusions as to credibility can only be rebutted by the accused through substantial reasons.

5. The accused failed to rebut the testimonies of the arresting officers. The accused only provided a self-serving account and did not present any affirmative evidence to support his claim of wrongful detention. The credibility of the arresting officers was reinforced by their consistent corroborating statements during cross-examination. The trial court and the appellate court gave more weight to the positive testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses over the accused's defenses of denial and frame-up.

6. The illegal arrest of the accused does not affect the validity of the conviction. The legality of an arrest only affects the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. The accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity with regard to his arrest if he fails to raise the issue or move for the quashal of the information before his arraignment. In this case, the accused failed to timely question the illegality of his arrest and did not present any evidence to substantiate his claim.

7. The amendment to the information was a formal amendment. The amendment merely added precision to the factual allegations already contained in the original information and did not introduce new and material facts. It also corrected an obvious clerical error.

8. The amendment did not violate the requirements of due process. The amendment did not charge another offense, alter the prosecution's theory of the case, introduce new and material facts, or add anything essential for conviction. It did not prejudice the accused's rights.

9. The model number on the hand grenade is not an essential element of illegal possession of explosives. The accused-appellant was still afforded due process when he was informed that he was being indicted for illegally possessing a hand grenade, with the model number being immaterial. The original and amended informations sufficiently cover the necessary elements.

10. The original and amended informations sufficiently allege the existence of the contraband and accused-appellant's lack of license to possess it. The allegations in the informations are allegations of ultimate facts that will be proven or rebutted during the trial. An accused cannot seek invalidation of an amended information simply because it clarifies an element misstated in the original information.

11. The chain of custody rule does not apply to an undetonated grenade as it is not amorphous and its form is relatively resistant to change. A witness of the prosecution need only identify the hand grenade based on personal knowledge that it came from the person of the accused-appellant.

12. The absence of a marking on the grenade does not affect its evidentiary value as long as the witness can establish that it is the same grenade confiscated from the accused-appellant.

13. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not fail to conduct a five-day continuous trial. The accused's contention that there were numerous postponements that resulted in the trial not being conducted continuously for five days was not supported by the records. The trial transcripts clearly showed that the trial was conducted continuously for five days in compliance with the rules.

14. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused's right to due process was not violated. The accused failed to present any allegation or evidence to prove that he was not afforded his right to be present during the trial or that he was denied the opportunity to present his defense. Due process requires that the accused should be given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in his defense, and in the present case, the accused was able to do so.

PRINCIPLES:

• In flagrante delicto arrest requires an overt act indicating the commission, actual commission, or attempt to commit a crime in the presence of the arresting officer.

• Warrantless arrest based on probable cause requires that an offense "has just been committed" and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts or circumstances indicating the accused's involvement in the offense.

• Probable cause for warrantless arrest is a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious person's belief that the accused is guilty of the offense.

• A split second decision by police officers in a potentially dangerous situation is recognized and justified for the purpose of protecting public safety.

• Accused's warrantless arrest may result in a valid incidental search and seizure to protect the arresting officer and prevent the destruction of evidence.

• Reliable information, such as CCTV footage, can be considered as a valid basis for a warrantless arrest if the accused performs some overt act indicating the commission, actual commission, or attempt to commit a crime.

• The trial court is in the best position to weigh the evidence presented during trial and determine the credibility of witnesses.

• The accused must provide substantial reasons to rebut the trial court's assessments and conclusions as to credibility.

• The illegal arrest of an accused does not invalidate a valid judgment rendered after a trial free from error.

• Only evidence obtained after an unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in evidence.

• Differentiating between formal and substantial amendments to an information.

• Due process requires that the accusation be in due form and the accused be given notice and an opportunity to answer the charge.

• The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearms, explosives, ammunitions or incendiary devices are the existence of the subject firearm and the lack of corresponding license for its possession.

• The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of firearms, explosives, ammunitions or incendiary devices is the accused's lack of license or permit to possess or carry the firearm.

• The burden of proving the corpus delicti rests with the prosecution. The existence of the firearm may be established by testimony even without the presentation of the actual firearm as evidence.

• A change in the description of an element alleged in the information is evidentiary in nature and amounts to a mere formal amendment.

• The truth or falsity of the allegations in an information are determined during trial, and an accused needs to rebut or equalize these allegations through countervailing evidence.

• Object evidence can be classified as actual or demonstrative evidence, and actual evidence can further be categorized as unique objects, objects made unique, and non-unique objects.

• Non-unique objects must be made unique by law enforcers upon retrieval or confiscation to authenticate them before trial and reviewing courts can determine their relevance or probative value.

• Authentication of object evidence is necessary for its admissibility, as authenticity is an inherent attribute of relevance and a component of admissibility.

• The chain of custody rule, historically applied to illegal drug substances, has not been extended to other substances or objects, but authentication is still required before their admission as evidence.

• Object evidence now requires authentication or testimonial sponsorship before it may be admitted or considered by the court, as mandated by the Judicial Affidavit Rule.

• The chain of custody rule applies when proffered evidence is amorphous or subject to change, while a proper foundation need only consist of testimony when the evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change. The determination of whether a proper foundation has been laid for the introduction of an exhibit into evidence is within the discretion of the trial court.

• The credibility of authenticating witnesses is for the trier of fact to determine.

• Bare and unsubstantiated allegations of ill motive or impropriety have no probative value and cannot take the place of evidence.

• The presumption that the prosecution's witnesses have been regularly performing their official duty should be upheld absent any clear and convincing evidence of ill motive.

• The trial court must conduct a five-day continuous trial as required by the rules.

• The accused's right to due process includes the right to be present during the trial and the right to present evidence in his defense.