Fajardo v. People

G.R. No. 190889 (January 10, 2011)

Facts:

Elenita C. Fajardo and Zaldy Valerio were charged with violating Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as amended, for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The charges stemmed from an incident on August 28, 2002, in Barangay Andagao, Kalibo, Aklan, where police responded to reports of armed individuals firing guns at Fajardo's residence. Upon arrival, police observed Valerio holding two .45 caliber pistols and saw Fajardo tucking a handgun into her waistband before entering her house and locking the door.

The police, unable to enter the house immediately, cordoned off the area. During the early hours of August 28, Valerio was seen discarding two firearm receivers from the rooftop, which were later recovered by the police. A search warrant was subsequently obtained and executed at Fajardo's residence, leading to the confiscation of additional firearms and ammunition.

Both accused were arraigned on March 25, 2004, and pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial, they stipulated certain facts, including their lack of licenses for the firearms. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found them guilty based on the evidence presented, including the items recovered during the search and the judicial admission of their lack of permits.

Fajardo and Valerio argued that the search warrant was defective because it was based on information not within the personal knowledge of the officer who applied for it. They also contended that the execution of the search warrant was improper, as Fajardo was not allowed to accompany the police during the search. Fajardo claimed the confiscated items belonged to her brother, a military personnel, and denied possessing a firearm at the time of the police arrival.

The RTC rejected their defenses, stating that they were estopped from contesting the legality of the search warrant due to their participation in the trial. The court ruled that possession of the firearms was established, and both were sentenced to imprisonment and fines.

Fajardo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's findings but modified the conclusions regarding the search warrant's validity. The CA ruled that the search warrant was void due to the lack of personal knowledge by the officer who applied for it, but admitted the receivers found in plain view as evidence. The CA convicted both for illegal possession of a part of a firearm, imposing a lesser penalty.

Fajardo subsequently filed a petition for review, seeking acquittal.

Issues:

1. Whether the search warrant was valid and whether the evidence obtained was admissible.
2. Whether Fajardo could be held liable for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
3. Whether the information filed against Fajardo and Valerio was duplicitous.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Fajardo):

  • Argued that the search warrant was invalid as it was based on information not within the personal knowledge of the applying officer.
  • Contended that the execution of the search warrant was improper, as she was not allowed to accompany the police during the search.
  • Claimed that the confiscated items belonged to her brother and denied possessing a firearm.
  • Asserted that the discovery of the receivers did not fall under the plain view doctrine, as there was no valid intrusion.

• Respondent (People of the Philippines):

  • Maintained that the search warrant was valid and that the evidence obtained was admissible.
  • Argued that Fajardo's possession of the firearms was established, and her lack of a license to possess them constituted a violation of the law.
  • Asserted that the information was not duplicitous, as the charges were based on separate provisions of the law.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court reversed the CA's decision with respect to Fajardo, acquitting her on the grounds that her guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that the receivers were admissible as evidence under the plain view doctrine, as the police had a lawful reason to be in the area and the discovery of the receivers was inadvertent.

However, the Court found that Fajardo was not in possession of the receivers, as there was no evidence showing her participation or knowledge of Valerio's actions when he discarded the items. The Court emphasized that mere possession, without intent to possess, does not constitute a violation of the law. The prosecution failed to establish that Fajardo had the requisite animus possidendi (intent to possess) regarding the receivers.

The Court also noted that the information filed against Fajardo and Valerio was duplicitous, as it charged multiple offenses under different provisions of the law. However, since the issue was not raised during the arraignment, it constituted a waiver of the right to contest the duplicity.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The validity of a search warrant requires that the applying officer has personal knowledge of the facts justifying its issuance.
2. The plain view doctrine allows for the admissibility of evidence discovered inadvertently by law enforcement officers who are lawfully present in an area.
3. Possession of firearms requires not only physical possession but also intent to possess; mere incidental possession without intent does not constitute a violation of illegal possession laws.
4. The charge of duplicity in an information must be raised at the earliest opportunity, or it is deemed waived.