Case Digest of Villamor V People

VILLAMOR AND BONAOBRA V.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

807 PHIL 894-912, G.R. No. 200396
March 22, 2017
Del Castillo, J.
Topic : Overt Acts; Gambling Paraphernalia; Valid Search and Seizure
FACTS:
Martin Villamor and Victor Bonaobra, herein petitioners, were charged with
violation of RA 9287—Villamor as a collector of bets in the illegal numbers game of
“lotteng” under Section 3 (c) while Bonaobra as a coordinator, controller, or supervisor
under Section 3 (d).
Version of the Prosecution. The prosecution alleged that sometime in 2005, PD

Peñ aflor received a tip from an informant about an ongoing illegal numbers game at the
residence of Bonaobra in Brgy. Francia, Virac, Catanduanes. Upon arrival at said area,
the police officers saw petitioners in the act of counting money bets. They introduced
themselves as police officers when they entered the gate and confiscated the cash
amounting to Php 1,500 in different denominations, the “papelitos,” a calculator, a
cellular phone, and a pen which were found on the table.
Version of the Defense. The petitioners, however, argued that on the date of
arrest, Villamor went to Bonaobra’s house to pay his debt owed to Bonaobra’s wife. He
then gave the P 2, 000 to Bonaobra which the latter placed on the top of the table. When
Bonaobra was at the door to answer a call, PD Peñ aflor kicked the fence of his house,
grabbed his right arm, and said, “caught in the act ka!” Bonaobra’s father then went
outside, asked the police if he had a search warrant, and maintained that such action
done by the police was wrong and prohibited, but the police replied, “Di na kailangan
yan.” Petitioners were then brought in for investigation at the police headquarters.
The trial court held petitioners guilty on the ground that they were caught in
flagrante delicto committing illegal numbers game known as “lotteng”, to which CA
affirmed the same. Hence, this instant petition for Review.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not petitioners’ right against unreasonable searches and seizures
was violated by the arresting officers when they barged into Bonaobra’s
compound without a valid warrant of arrest or a search warrant.
(2) Whether or not the seized gambling paraphernalias are admissible in evidence.
(3) Whether or not petitioners' conviction for violation of RA 9287 as collector or

agent under Section 3 (c) for Villamor, and as coordinator, controller, or
supervisor under Section 3 (d) for Bonaobra, should be upheld.
RULING:
ABRENICA, M7
(1)Yes, petitioners’ right against unreasonable searches and seizures was
violated by the arresting officers when they barged into Bonaobra’s
compound without a valid warrant of arrest or a search warrant.
The Constitution requires that a juridical warrant is needed to validly effect a

search and an arrest. However, the rule is subject to an exception in a case of an “in
flagrante delicto” warrantless arrest permissible under Rules of Court. In such
warrantless arrest, two elements must concur, to wit: (1) the person to be arrested
must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer.
However, in this case, none of the elements were met. Based on the testimonies
of PO1 Saraspi and PD Peñ aflor, they were positioned some 15 to 20 meters away from
petitioners and with such significant distance, it is doubtful that they were able to
determine that criminal activity was ongoing to allow them to validly effect an in
flagrante delicto warrantless arrest and a search incidental to such. They even admitted
that the compound was surrounded by a bamboo fence 5'7" to 5'9" in height, which
made it harder to see what was happening inside the compound. It appears that the
police officers acted based solely on the information received from the unnamed
informant rather than on personal knowledge of facts constitutive of probable cause.
Moreover, it is also doubtful that said officers witnessed any overt act before
entering the private home of Bonaobra immediately preceding the arrest. PO1 Saraspi
even admitted that from his position outside the compound, he could not read the
contents of the so-called “papelitos;” yet, upon seeing the calculator, phone, papers, and
money on the table, he readily concluded the same to be gambling paraphernalia.
Thus, petitioners’ right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated.
(2)No, the seized gambling paraphernalias are inadmissible in evidence.
The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine provides that any items seized in
violation of the Constitution are legally inadmissible in evidence in any of the
proceedings.
In this case, given that the warrantless arrest and the search incidental to
warrantless arrest were unlawful, the seizure of the money, “papelitos,” calculator,
cellular phone, and pen on the table were likewise illegal.
Hence, the seized gambling paraphernalias are inadmissible in evidence
(3)No, petitioners' conviction for violation of RA 9287 as collector or agent

under Section 3 (c) for Villamor, and as coordinator, controller, or
supervisor under Section 3 (d) for Bonaobra, should not be upheld.
ABRENICA, M7
RA 9287 provides that a collector or agent is any person who collects, solicits or
produces bets in behalf of his/her principal for any illegal numbers game who is usually
in possession of gambling paraphernalia. Further, a coordinator, controller, or
supervisor is any person who exercises control and supervision over the collector or
agent.
In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establish the acts that constitute the
offense of illegal gambling as a collector or even as a coordinator. What they did was
merely to rely on the alleged illegal gambling items found and seized inside the house of
Banaobra and not on the specific over acts that constitute the offense.
Verily, petitioners’ conviction should not be upheld.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the June 13, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
No. 30457 which affirmed the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Virac,
Catanduanes, Branch 43 in Criminal Case Nos. 3463 and 3464 are hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Petitioners are ACQUITTED and are ordered to be immediately
RELEASED from detention. SO ORDERED.
ABRENICA, M7

Case Digest of Villamor V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest of Villamor V People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest of Villamor V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VILLAMOR AND BONAOBRA V.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Topic : Overt Acts; Gambling Paraphernalia; Valid Search and Seizure

Version of the Prosecution. The prosecution alleged that sometime in 2005, PD

(3) Whether or not petitioners' conviction for violation of RA 9287 as collector or

The Constitution requires that a juridical warrant is needed to validly effect a

(2)No, the seized gambling paraphernalias are inadmissible in evidence.

(3)No, petitioners' conviction for violation of RA 9287 as collector or agent

You might also like