FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 142295. May 31, 2001]

VICENTE DEL ROSARIO y NICOLAS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

DECISION
PARDO, J.:

Petitioner Vicente del Rosario y Nicolas appeals via certiorari from a decision of the Court
of Appeals[1] affirming with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Bulacan,
Branch 20, Malolos, and finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of P. D. No.
1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294 (illegal possession of firearms), sentencing him to
four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six
(6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine of
P30,000.00.
On June 17, 1996, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Eufracio S. Marquez of Bulacan filed
with the Regional Trial Court, Bulacan, Malolos an Information charging petitioner Vicente del
Rosario y Nicolas with violation of P. D. No. 1866, as follows:

That on or about the 15th day of June 1996, in the municipality of Norzagaray, Province of
Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession under his
custody and control, the following, to wit:

a) One (1) pc. Pistol Cal. 45 SN:70G23792 (w/o license)

b) One (1) pc. Revolver Cal. 22 SN:48673 (w/o license)

c) Twenty Seven (27) rds live ammos. For cal. .45

d) Five (5) pcs. Magazines for cal. .45

e) Eight (8) rds live ammunitions for cal. 22

f) Five (5) pcs. Magazines short for cal. 5.56 (M16)

g) Twenty (20) rds live ammunitions for cal 5.56

without first having obtained a proper license therefor.

Contrary to law.[2]

On June 25, 1996, the trial court arraigned the petitioner. He pleaded not guilty.[3] Trial
ensued.
The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

Sometime in May 1996, the police received a report that accused-appellant Vicente del Rosario
was in possession of certain firearms without the necessary licenses. Acting upon the report,
P/Sr. Insp. Jerito Adique of the PNP Criminal Investigation Group at Camp Olivas, Pampanga
inquired from the PNP Firearms and Explosive Division whether or not the report was true. On
May 10, 1996, P/Sr. Insp. Edwin C. Roque of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Division issued a
certification (Exhibit L) stating that per records in his office, the appellant is not a
licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber. Armed with the said certification,
P/Sr. Insp. Adique applied for a search warrant to enable his team to search the house of
appellant.

On June 13, 1996, a search warrant (Exhibit A) was issued by Judge Gil Fernandez, Sr. of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217, authorizing the search of the residence of
appellant at Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan.[4] On June 15, 1996, at about 7:00 oclock in
the morning, a team led by P/Sr. Insp. Adique went to Norzagaray to serve the warrant. Before
proceeding to the residence of the appellant, the police officers requested Barangay Chairman
Rogelio de Silva and Barangay Councilman Aurelio Panteleon to accompany them in the
implementation of the warrant. Upon arrival at the house of appellant, the police officers
introduced themselves to the wife of appellant. When the appellant came out, P/Sr. Insp. Adique
informed him that they had a search warrant and that they were authorized to search his house.
After appellant gave his permission, the police officers conducted a search of the house. The
search yielded the following items: (a) a caliber .45 pistol with Serial No. 703792 with five
magazines of caliber .45 (Exhibits B and H) found at the masters bedroom; (b) five magazines of
5.56 M-16 rifle and two radios (Exhibits C to C-4) found in the room of appellants daughter; and
(c) a caliber .22 revolver with Serial No. 48673 (Exhibit F) containing 8 pieces of live
ammunition (Exhibit M) found in the kitchen of the house. When asked about his license to
possess the firearms, the appellant failed to produce any. This prompted the police officers to
seize the subject firearms.

SPO2 Marion Montezon, one of the searching officers, prepared three separate inventories of the
seized items (Exhibits H, M and N). The inventories were signed by P/Sr. Insp. Adique, the
appellant and the barangay officials who witnessed the search. Thereafter SPO2 Montezon
prepared a certification of orderly search (Exhibit I) which was signed by the appellant and the
barangay officials attesting to the orderly conduct of the search.

For his defense, appellant contends that he had a license for the caliber .45 pistol recovered in his
bedroom and that the other items seized during the search including the caliber .22 revolver,
were merely planted by the police officers. Appellant likewise assails the manner in which the
search was carried out, claiming that the police officers just barged into his house without asking
permission. Furthermore, he claimed that the barangay officials arrived only after the police
already had finished the search.
After trial and on July 2, 1998, the trial court rendered a judgment of conviction, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused VICENTE DEL ROSARIO y
NICOLAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of P. D. No. 1866 as charged under the
Information dated June 17, 1996.

Conformably with the provisions of said law, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, and
pursuant to the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court hereby sentences the
accused to suffer imprisonment of six (6) months of arrestomayor, as minimum, to six (6) years
of prision correctional, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00).[5]

On July 20, 1998, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, assailing the decision for
being contrary to facts and the law.[6]
On July 9, 1999, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision affirming with modification
the decision of the trial court as set out in the opening paragraph of this decision.[7]
On August 10, 1999, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration
and/or new trial.[8] He contended that the certification issued by the Chief, Firearms and
Explosives Division, Philippine National Police stating that the person named therein had not
been issued a firearm license referred to a certain Vicente Vic del Rosario of barangay Bigte,
Norzagaray, Bulacan, not to him. He comes from barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan, and that
he has a valid firearm license.
On February 22, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration for lack
of merit.[9]
Hence, this appeal.[10]
Petitioner submits that the search conducted at his residence was illegal as the search
warrant was issued in violation of the Constitution [11] and consequently, the evidence seized was
inadmissible. He also submits that he had a license for the .45 caliber firearm and ammunition
seized in his bedroom. The other firearm, a .22 caliber revolver seized in a drawer at the kitchen
of his house, a magazine for 5.56 mm. cal. Armalite rifle, and two 2-way radios found in his
daughters bedroom, were either planted by the police or illegally seized, as they were not
mentioned in the search warrant.
We find the petition impressed with merit.
We define the issues as follows:
First: whether petitioner had a license for the .45 caliber Colt pistol and ammunition seized
in his bedroom; and
Second: whether the .22 caliber revolver seized in a drawer at the kitchen of his house, a
magazine for 5.56 mm. cal. Armalite rifle and two 2-way radios found in his daughters bedroom,
were planted by the police or were illegally seized.
We shall resolve the issues in seriatim.
First: The .45 cal. Colt pistol in question was duly licensed.
 Normally, we do not review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial courts.
[12]
However, this case comes within the exceptions.[13] The findings of fact by the Court of
Appeals will not be disturbed by the Court unless these findings are not supported by evidence.
[14]
In this case, the findings of the lower courts even directly contradict the evidence. Hence, we
review the evidence. The trial court held that the copy of the license presented was blurred, and
that in any event, the court could rely on the certification dated May 10, 1996, of P/Sr. Inspector
Edwin C. Roque, Chief, Records Branch, Firearms and Explosives Division, Philippine National
Police stating that Vicente Vic del Rosario of Barangay Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan is not a
licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber. [15] As against this, petitioner submitted
that he was not the person referred to in the said certification because he is Vicente del Rosario y
Nicolas from Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan. The Court takes judicial notice of the
existence of both barangay Tigbe and barangay Bigte, in Norzagaray, Bulacan. [16] In fact, the trial
court erred grievously in not taking judicial notice of the barangays within its territorial
jurisdiction, believing the prosecutions submission that there was only barangay Tigbe, and that
barangay Bigte in the certification was a typographical error. [17] Petitioner presented to the head
of the raiding team, Police Senior Inspector Jerito A. Adique, Chief, Operations Branch, PNP
Criminal Investigation Command, a valid firearm license. The court is duty bound to examine
the evidence assiduously to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is true that the
court may rely on the certification of the Chief, Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP on the
absence of a firearm license.[18] However, such certification referred to another individual and
thus, cannot prevail over a valid firearm license duly issued to petitioner. In this case, petitioner
presented the printed computerized copy of License No. RCL 1614021915 issued to him on July
13, 1993, expiring in January 1995, by the Chief, Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP under
the signature of Reynaldo V. Velasco, Sr. Supt. (GSC) PNP, Chief, FEO.[19] On the dorsal side of
the printed computerized license, there is stamped the words Validity of computerized license is
extended until renewed license is printed dated January 17, 1995, signed by Police Chief
Inspector Franklin S. Alfabeto, Chief, Licence Branch, FEO. [20] Coupled with this indefinite
extension, petitioner paid the license fees for the extension of the license for the next two-year
period.[21]
Consequently, we find that petitioner was the holder of a valid firearm license for the .45
caliber Colt pistol seized in the bedroom of his house on June 15, 1996.[22] As required, petitioner
presented the license to the head of the raiding team, Police Senior Inspector Jerito A. Adique
of the Criminal Investigation Division Group, PNP.[23] As a senior police officer, Senior Inspector
Adique could easily determine the genuineness and authenticity of the computerized printed
license presented. He must know the computerized license printed form. The stamp is clearly
visible. He could decipher the words and the signature of the authorized signing official of the
Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP. He belonged to the same national police organization.
Nevertheless, Senior Insp. Adique rejected the license presented because, according to him,
it was expired. However, assuming that the license presented was expired during the period
January 1995 to January 1997, still, possession of the firearm in question, a .45 caliber Colt
pistol with serial No. 70G23792, during that period was not illegal. The firearm was kept at
home, not carried outside residence. On June 15, 1996, at the time of the seizure of the firearm in
question, possession of firearm with an expired license was not considered
unlawful, provided that the license had not been cancelled or revoked. Republic Act No. 8294,
providing that possession of a firearm with an expired license was unlawful took effect only on
July 7, 1997.[24] It could not be given retroactive effect.[25]
According to firearm licensing regulations, the renewal of a firearm license was
automatically applied for upon payment of the license fees for the renewal period. The expired
license was not cancelled or revoked. It served as temporary authority to possess the firearm until
the renewed license was issued. Meantime, the applicant may keep the gun at home pending
renewal of the firearm license and issuance of a printed computerized license. He was not
obliged to surrender the weapon. Printed at the dorsal side of the computerized license is a notice
reading:

IMPORTANT

1. This firearm license is valid for two (2) years. Exhibit this license whenever
demanded by proper authority.
2. Surrender your firearm/s to the nearest PNP Unit upon revocation or termination of
this license. Under any of the following instances, your license shall be revoked for
which reason your firearm/s is/are subject to confiscation and its/their forfeiture in
favor of the government.

a. Failure to notify the Chief of PNP in writing of your change of address, and/or
qualification.

b. Failure to renew this license by paying annual license, fees, within six (6) months
from your birth month. Renewal of your license can be made within your birth
month or month preceding your birth month. Late renewal shall be penalized with
50% surcharge for the first month (from the first day to the last day of this month)
followed by an additional 25% surcharge for all of the succeeding five (5) months
compounded monthly.

c. Loss of firearm/s through negligence.

d. Carrying of firearm/s outside of residence without appropriate permit and/or carrying

firearm/s in prohibited places.

e. Conviction by competent court for a crime involving moral turpitude or for any
offense where the penalty carries an imprisonment of more than six (6) months or fine
of at least P1,000.00.

f. Dismissal for cause from the service.

g. Failure to sign license, or sign ID picture or affix right thumbmark.

3. Unauthorized loan of firearm/s to another person is punishable by permanent

disqualification and forfeiture of the firearm in favor of the government.
 4. If termination is due to death, your next of kin should surrender your firearm/s to the
nearest PNP Unit. For those within Metro Manila, surrender should be made with
FEO, Camp Crame.
5. When firearms become permanently unserviceable, they should be deposited with the
nearest PNP Unit and ownership should be relinquished in writing so that firearms
may be disposed of in accordance with law.
6. Application for the purchase of ammunition should be made in case of a resident of
Metro Manila direct to the Chief, FEO and for residents of a Province to secure
recommendation letter to the nearest PNP Provincial Command who will thereafter
endorse same to CHIEF, FEO for issuance of the permit. License must be presented
before an authority to purchase ammo could be obtained.[26]
Indeed, as heretofore stated, petitioner duly paid the license fees for the automatic renewal
of the firearm license for the next two years upon expiration of the license in January 1995, as
evidenced by official receipt No. 7615186, dated January 17, 1995. [27] The license would be
renewed, as it was, because petitioner still possessed the required qualifications. Meantime, the
validity of the license was extended until the renewed computerized license was printed. In fact,
a renewed license was issued on January 17, 1997, for the succeeding two-year period.[28]
Aside from the clearly valid and subsisting license issued to petitioner, on January 25, 1995,
the Chief, Philippine National Police issued to him a permit to carry firearm outside residence
valid until January 25, 1996, for the firearm in question. [29] The Chief, Philippine National Police
would not issue a permit to carry firearm outside residence unless petitioner had a valid and
subsisting firearm license. Although the permit to carry firearm outside residence was valid for
only one year, and expired on January 25, 1996, such permit is proof that the regular firearm
license was renewed and subsisting within the two-year term up to January 1997. A Permit to
Carry Firearm Outside Residence presupposes that the party to whom it is issued is duly licensed
to possess the firearm in question.[30] Unquestionably, on January 17, 1997, the Chief, Firearms
and Explosives Division, PNP renewed petitioners license for the .45 cal. Colt pistol in question.
[31]

Clearly then, petitioner had a valid firearm license during the interregnum between January
17, 1995, to the issuance of his renewed license on January 17, 1997.
Finally, there is no rhyme or reason why the Court of Appeals and the trial court did not
accept with alacrity the certification dated June 25, 1996, of P/Sr. Inspector Edwin C. Roque,
[32]
Chief, Records Branch, Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP that Vicente N. del Rosario of
Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan is a licensed/registered holder of Pistol, Colt caliber .45
with serial number 70G23792, covered by computerized license issued dated June 15, 1995, with
an expiry date January 1997.[33] Reinforcing the aforementioned certification, petitioner
submitted another certification dated August 27, 1999, stating that Vicente N. del Rosario of
Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan, was issued firearm license No. RL-C1614021915, for
caliber .45 Pistol with Serial Number 70G23792, for the years covering the period from July 13,
1993 to January 1995, and the extension appearing at the back thereof for the years 1995 to
1997.[34] Had the lower courts given full probative value to these official issuances, petitioner
would have been correctly acquitted, thus sparing this Court of valuable time and effort.
 In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution has the burden of proving
the elements thereof, viz.: (a) the existence of the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused
who owned or possessed it does not have the license or permit to possess the same. [35] The
essence of the crime of illegal possession is the possession, whether actual or constructive, of the
subject firearm, without which there can be no conviction for illegal possession. After possession
is established by the prosecution, it would only be a matter of course to determine whether the
accused has a license to possess the firearm. [36] Possession of any firearm becomes unlawful only
if the necessary permit or license therefor is not first obtained. The absence of license and legal
authority constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of firearm and
every ingredient or essential element of an offense must be shown by the prosecution by proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Stated otherwise, the negative fact of lack or absence of license
constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense which the prosecution has the duty not only to
allege but also to prove beyond reasonable doubt. [37] To convict an accused for illegal possession
of firearms and explosives under P. D. 1866, as amended, two (2) essential elements must be
indubitably established, viz.: (a) the existence of the subject firearm or explosive which may be
proved by the presentation of the subject firearm or explosive or by the testimony of witnesses
who saw accused in possession of the same, and (b) the negative fact that the accused had no
license or permit to own or possess the firearm or explosive which fact may be established by the
testimony or certification of a representative of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit that the
accused has no license or permit to possess the subject firearm or explosive. x x x We stress that
the essence of the crime penalized under P. D. 1866 is primarily the accuseds lack of license or
permit to carry or possess the firearm, ammunition or explosive as possession by itself is not
prohibited by law.[38] Illegal possession of firearm is a crime punished by special law, a malum
prohibitum, and no malice or intent to commit a crime need be proved. [39] To support a
conviction, however, there must be possession coupled with intent to possess (animus
possidendi) the firearm.[40]
In upholding the prosecution and giving credence to the testimony of police officer Jerito A.
Adigue, the trial court relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties by the police officers.[41] This is a flagrant error because his testimony is directly
contradictory to the official records of the Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP, which must
prevail. Morever, the presumption of regularity can not prevail over the Constitutional
presumption of innocence.[42] Right from the start, P/Sr. Insp. Jerito A. Adigue was aware that
petitioner possessed a valid license for the caliber .45 Colt pistol in question. Despite this fact,
P/Sr. Insp. Adigue proceeded to detain petitioner and charged him with illegal possession of
firearms. We quote pertinent portions of the testimony of petitioner:
Q: What else did Adigue tell you after showing to him the license of your cal. .45 pistol and
the alleged cal. .22 found in a drawer in your kitchen?
A: He told me that since my firearm is licensed, he will return my firearm, give him ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) and for me to tell who among the people in our barangay
have unlicensed firearm, sir.
Q: How did he say about the ten thousand pesos?
A: He said palit kalabaw na lang tayo sir.
Q: And what did you answer him?
 A: I told him my firearm is licensed and I do not have money, if I have, I will not give him,
sir, because he was just trying to squeeze something from me.
Q: How about the unlicensed firearms in your barangay which he asked from you?
A: I said I do not know any unlicensed firearm in our barangay, sir.
Q: About the .22 cal. pistol, what was your answer to him?
A: I told him that it was not mine, they planted it, sir.
Q: What did he say next?
A: He said that it is your word against mine, the Court will believe me because I am a
police officer, sir.
Q: What was your comment to what he said?
A: I said my firearm is licensed and we have Courts of law who do not conform with officials
like you and then he laughed and laughed, sir.[43]
The trial court was obviously misguided when it held that it is a matter of judicial notice that
a caliber .45 firearm can not be licensed to a private individual.[44] This ruling has no basis either
in law or in jurisprudence.[45]
Second issue. The seizure of items not mentioned in the search warrant was illegal.
With respect to the .22 caliber revolver with Serial No. 48673, that the police raiding team
found in a drawer at the kitchen of petitioners house, suffice it to say that the firearm was not
mentioned in the search warrant applied for and issued for the search of petitioners house.
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure must
be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant, absent which such search and
seizure becomes unreasonable within the meaning of said constitutional provision. [46] Supporting
jurisprudence thus outlined the following requisites for a search warrants validity, the absence of
even one will cause its downright nullification: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the
probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other
person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or
affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant
issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.
[47]
Seizure is limited to those items particularly described in a valid search warrant. Searching
officers are without discretion regarding what articles they shall seize. [48] Evidence seized on the
occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and excluded for being the
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.[49]
In this case, the firearm was not found inadvertently and in plain view. It was found as a
result of a meticulous search in the kitchen of petitioners house. This firearm, to emphasize, was
not mentioned in the search warrant. Hence, the seizure was illegal. [50] The seizure without the
requisite search warrant was in plain violation of the law and the Constitution. [51] True that as an
exception, the police may seize without warrant illegally possessed firearm or any contraband for
that matter, inadvertently found in plain view. However, [t]he seizure of evidence in plain view
applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but
inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.[52]Specifically, seizure of evidence in plain
view is justified when there is:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be
where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
(d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.[53]
Hence, the petitioner rightly rejected the firearm as planted and not belonging to him. The
prosecution was not able to prove that the firearm was in the effective possession or control of
the petitioner without a license. In illegal possession of firearms, the possessor must know of the
existence of the subject firearm in his possession or control. In People v. de Gracia, [54] we
clarified the meaning of possession for the purpose of convicting a person under P. D. No. 1866,
thus: x x xIn the present case, a distinction should be made between criminal intent and intent to
possess. While mere possession without criminal intent is sufficient to convict a person for
illegal possession of a firearm, it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an
intent to possess on the part of the accused. x x x x Hence, the kind of possession punishable
under P. D. No. 1866 is one where the accused possessed a firearm either physically or
constructively with animus possidendi or intention to possess the same. [55] That is the meaning
of animus possidendi. In the absence of animus possidendi, the possessor of a firearm incurs no
criminal liability.
The same is true with respect to the 5.56 cal. magazine found in the bedroom of petitioners
daughter. The seizure was invalid and the seized items were inadmissible in evidence. As
explained in People v. Doria,[56] the plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites
concur: (1) the law enforcement officer is in a position where he has a clear view of a particular
area or has prior justification for an intrusion; (2) said officer inadvertently comes across (or sees
in plain view) a piece of incriminating evidence; and (3) it is immediately apparent to such
officer that the item he sees may be evidence of a crime or a contraband or is otherwise subject to
seizure.
With particular reference to the two 2-way radios that the raiding policemen also seized in
the bedroom of petitioners daughter, there was absolutely no reason for the seizure. The radios
were not contraband per se. The National Telecommunications Commission may license two-
way radios at its discretion.[57] The burden is on the prosecution to show that the two-way radios
were not licensed. The National Telecommunication Commission is the sole agency authorized
to seize unlicensed two-way radios. More importantly, admittedly, the two-way radios were not
mentioned in the search warrant. We condemn the seizure as illegal and a plain violation of a
citizens right. Worse, the petitioner was not charged with illegal possession of the two-way
radios.
Consequently, the confiscation of the two 2-way radios was clearly illegal. The possession
of such radios is not even included in the charge of illegal possession of firearms (violation of P.
D. No. 1866, as amended) alleged in the Information.
 WHEREFORE, the Court hereby REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G. R. CR No. 22255, promulgated on July 09, 1999.
The Court ACQUITS petitioner Vicente del Rosario y Nicolas of the charge of violation of
P. D. No. 1866, as amended by R. A. No. 8294 (illegal possession of firearms and ammunition),
in Criminal Case No. 800-M-96, Regional Trial Court, Bulacan, Branch 20, Malolos.
Costs de oficio.
The Chief, Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP shall return to petitioner his caliber .45
Colt pistol, with Serial Number No. 70G23792, the five (5) extra magazines and twenty seven
(27) rounds of live ammunition, and the two 2-way radios confiscated from him. The Chief,
Philippine National Police, or his duly authorized representative shall show to this Court proof of
compliance herewith within fifteen (15) days from notice. The .22 caliber revolver with Serial
No. 48673, and eight (8) live ammunition and the magazine for 5.56 mm. caliber Armalite rifle
are confiscated in favor of the government.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., on leave.

EL ROSARIO y NICOLAS
vs.
PEOPLE, G.R. No. 142295, PARDO,
J

FACTS: Accused-appellant Vicente del Rosario was found guilty of violation of P. D. No. 1866 o
f the Regional Trial Court of Malolos. Allegedly, sometime in May 1996, the police received
a report that accused-appellant Vicente del Rosario was in possession of certain firearms without
the necessary licenses. Acting upon the report, the PNP Criminal Investigation Group inquired
from the PNPFirearms and Explosive Division whether or not the report was true. The
PNP Firearms and Explosives Division issued a certificationstating that per records in his office,
the appellant is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber. Armed with
thesaid certificationthe police applied for a search warrant to enable them to search the house of
appellant.Upon the issuance of the warrant, a team led by P/Sr. Insp. Adique went to Norzagaray
to serve the warrant. Before proceeding tothe residence of the appellant, the police officers
requested Barangay Chairman Rogelio de Silva and Barangay Councilman AurelioPanteleon to
accompany them in the implementation of the warrant. Upon arrival at the house of appellant,
the police officersintroduced themselves to the wife of appellant. When the appellant came out,
P/Sr. Insp. Adique informed him that they had asearch warrant and that they were authorized to
search his house. After appellant gave his permission, the police officers conducteda search of
the house. The search yielded the following items: (a) a caliber .45 pistol with Serial No. 703792
with five magazines of caliber .45 (Exhibits B and H) found at the master's bedroom; (b) five
magazines of 5.56 M-16 rifle and two radios (Exhibits C to C-4)found in the room of appellant's
daughter; and (c) a caliber .22 revolver with Serial No. 48673 (Exhibit F) containing 8 pieces of
liveammunition (Exhibit M) found in the kitchen of the house. When asked about his license to
possess the firearms, the appellant failedto produce any. This prompted the police officers to
seize the subject firearms.For his defense, appellant contends that he had a license for the
caliber .45 pistol recovered in his bedroom and that the other itemsseized during the search
including the caliber .22 revolver, were merely planted by the police officers. Appellant likewise
assails themanner in which the search was carried out, claiming that the police officers
just barged into his house without asking permission.Furthermore, he claimed that the barangay
officials arrived only after the police already had finished the search. However, after trialthe trial
court rendered a judgment of conviction which decision was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.ISSUE: Whether or not the seizure of items not mentioned in the search warrant was
illegal.HELD:The Supreme Court
REVERSES
the decision of the Court of Appeals and
ACQUITS
petitioner Vicente del Rosario y Nicolas of thecharge of violation of P. D. No. 1866.Seizure is
limited to those items particularly described in a valid search warrant. Searching officers are
without discretion regardingwhat articles they shall seize. Evidence seized on the occasion of
such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and excludedfor being the proverbial "fruit of
a poisonous tree." In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence
for any purpose in any proceedingIn this case, the firearm was not found inadvertently and in
plain view. It was found as a result of a meticulous search in the kitchenof petitioner's house.
This firearm, to emphasize, was not mentioned in the search warrant. Thus, the seizure is
illegal.True that as an exception, the police may seize without warrant illegally possessed firearm
or any contraband for that matter,inadvertently found in plain view. However, "[t]he seizure of
evidence in 'plain view' applies only where the police officer is notsearching for evidence against
the accused, but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object."
52
Specifically, seizure of evidence in "plain view" is justified when there is:(a) a prior valid
intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the
pursuit of their official duties;(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who
had the right to be where they are.(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and(d) "plain
view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.