PEOPLE v.

DE GRACIA
July 6, 1994 | Regalado, J. | Petition for Certiorari | Exigent and Emergency Circumstances
PETITIONER: Rolando de Gracia, Chito Henson, and John Does, accused, Rolando de Gracia, accused-appellant
RESPONDENT: People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee
SUMMARY: This took place at the height of the 1989 coup detat. Pursuant to intelligence reports, officers conducted surveillance
on Eurocar Sales Office, EDSA. While they were in a car outside Eurocar, the officers were fired at. 4 days later, they raided the
place. They confiscated various firearms and arrested De Gracia. The Court said this falls within the exceptions to the prohibition
against warrantless searches.
DOCTRINE: Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.
FACTS:
1. Ultra-rightist elements led by the Reform the Armed
Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People staged a
coup detat from November 30 to December 9, 1989.
Various govt establishments and military camps in Metro
Manila were being bombarded with "tora-tora" planes.
The 4th Marine Battalion of the Philippine Marines
occupied Villamor Air Base. The Scout Rangers took over
the Headquarters of the Philippine Army, the Army
Operations Center, and Channel 4, the govt tv station.
Also, some elements of the Philippine Army coming from
Fort Magsaysay occupied the Greenhills Shopping Center
in San Juan, Metro Manila.
2. Pursuant to intelligence reports, officers of the Intelligence
Division, NCR Defense Command conducted surveillance
on Eurocar Sales Office along EDSA
3. Said establishment was allegedly being used as a
communication command post of the coup detat.
4. A crowd gathered near Eurocar to watch the on-going
bombardment near Camp Aguinaldo.
5. Five men left the crowd and attacked the car of the
officers. One officer was shot in the thigh as they drove
away.
6. Four days later, they raided the place without a warrant
and they were refused entry. According to the officers,
they did not have a warrant because there was so much
disorder at the time considering Camp Aguinaldo was
being mopped up by rebel forces, there was simultaneous
firing within the area of Eurocar, and courts were
consequently closed.
7. They confiscated M-16 ammunitions, C-4 dynamites, Mshells, and molotov bombs, and arrested De Gracia.
8. The accused were charged in two separate informations.
One for illegal possession of ammunition and explosives in
furtherance of rebellion, one for attempted homicide. They
were found guilty for the first and acquitted for the second.
The RTC sentenced them to reclusion perpetua but
recommended executive clemency.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON intent to possess is an essential element of the
offense punishable under PD 1866 (illegal possession of
firearms) YES
2. WON De Gracia intended to illegally possess fireams and
ammunition YES
3. WON there was a valid search an seizure in this case
YES

4. WON the RTC was correct in applying Art. 135 of the RPC
to a prosecution for a crime under a special law NO
RULING: RTC decision AFFIRMED and MODIFIED as to
the recommendation of executive clemency. Such is deleted.
RATIO:
1. Animus possidendi, not criminal intent, is necessary to be
guilty of this special law
2. No doubt that De Gracia is guilty of having intentionally
possessed several firearms, explosives and ammunition
without a license or authority. Prosecution witness Sgt.
Oscar Abenia categorically testified that he was the first
one to enter the Eurocar Sales Office when the military
operatives raided the same, and he saw De Gracia
standing in the room and holding the explosives.
3. Although this matter was not squarely put in issue, the
Court deemed it their bounden duty to delve into the
legality of the warrantless search. Looking at the situation
surrounding the case, this falls under one of the exceptions
to the prohibition against warrantless search. Taking to
account all the facts stated above, the military operatives
had reasonable ground to believe a crime was being
committed. They had more than sufficient probable cause.
Furthermore, they had no opportunity to secure a search
warrant. Even the court a quo was closed at the time. The
urgency and exigency of the moment impelled the
warrantless search. To deprive the officers of the ability
and facility to act accordingly, including, to search even
without warrant, in the light of such circumstances, would
be to sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in law
enforcement, to the detriment of society.
4. Appellant is charged with the qualified offense of illegal
possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion under
PD 1866. This is distinct from the crime of rebellion
punished in Arts. 134-135 of the RPC. It was a
malapropism for the RTC to interject the aforestated
provision of the RPC in this prosecution for a crime under
a special law.