Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 914 views

    People vs. de Gracia - G. R. Nos. 102009-10 (Case Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    The defendant, De Gracia, was found in possession of firearms, explosives, and ammunition during a raid of the Eurocar Sales Office by the military. [1] The defendant was convicted of illegal possession but acquitted of attempted homicide. [2] The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that intent is not required for violations of special laws prohibiting possession, and that constructive possession is sufficient. [3] The warrantless search was also deemed valid due to the exigent circumstances of the coup and because the courts were closed, preventing the procurement of a warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. de Gracia - G. R. Nos. 102009-10 (Case Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    914 views2 pages
    The defendant, De Gracia, was found in possession of firearms, explosives, and ammunition during a raid of the Eurocar Sales Office by the military. [1] The defendant was convicted of illegal possession but acquitted of attempted homicide. [2] The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that intent is not required for violations of special laws prohibiting possession, and that constructive possession is sufficient. [3] The warrantless search was also deemed valid due to the exigent circumstances of the coup and because the courts were closed, preventing the procurement of a warrant.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    People vs. De Gracia - G. R. Nos. 102009-10 (case digest)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant, De Gracia, was found in possession of firearms, explosives, and ammunition during a raid of the Eurocar Sales Office by the military. [1] The defendant was convicted of illegal possession but acquitted of attempted homicide. [2] The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that intent is not required for violations of special laws prohibiting possession, and that constructive possession is sufficient. [3] The warrantless search was also deemed valid due to the exigent circumstances of the coup and because the courts were closed, preventing the procurement of a warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    914 views2 pages

    People vs. de Gracia - G. R. Nos. 102009-10 (Case Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    The defendant, De Gracia, was found in possession of firearms, explosives, and ammunition during a raid of the Eurocar Sales Office by the military. [1] The defendant was convicted of illegal possession but acquitted of attempted homicide. [2] The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that intent is not required for violations of special laws prohibiting possession, and that constructive possession is sufficient. [3] The warrantless search was also deemed valid due to the exigent circumstances of the coup and because the courts were closed, preventing the procurement of a warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    LCP

    SUBJECT: Criminal Law II


    TOPIC: Warrantless Search

    PEOPLE vs. DE GRACIA


    G. R. Nos. 102009-10 July 6, 1994

    FACTS
     Reform the Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP) staged a coup d’état on
    December 1989 against the Government.
     Efren Soria of Intelligence Division, NCR Defense Command, together with his team, conducted a
    surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office in EDSA, QC .
     Such surveillance was conducted pursuant to an intelligence report that the said establishment was being
    occupied by the elements of the RAM-SFP as communication command post.
     Near the Eurocar office, there were crowd watching the on-going bombardment near Camp Aguinaldo
    when a group of five men disengaged themselves and walked towards their surveillance car.
     Major Soria ordered the driver to start the car and leave the area. However, as they passed the area, the
    five men drew their guns and fired at them, which resulted to the wounding of the driver.
     Nobody in the surveillance team retaliated for they were afraid that civilians might be caught in the
    crossfire.
     Thereafter, the search team raided the Eurocar Sales Office and confiscated 6 cartons of M-16
    ammunition, 5 bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different calibers, and molotov.
     Obenia, who first entered the establishment, found De Gracia holding a C-4 and suspiciously peeping
    through the door in the office of a certain Colonel Matillano,
     No search warrant was secured by the raiding team because, according to them, there was so much
    disorder considering that the nearby Camp Aguinaldo was being mopped up by the rebel forces and there
    was simultaneous firing within the vicinity of the Eurocar office, aside from the fact that the courts were
    consequently closed.
     Appellant was convicted for illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion but was acquitted of
    attempted homicide.

    ISSUES AND RULINGS


    1. WON appellant is guilty of illegal possession of firearms.

    YES. There is no doubt in our minds that appellant De Gracia is indeed guilty of having intentionally possessed
    several firearms, explosives, and ammunition without the requisite license or authority therefor.

    Presidential Decree No. 1866 was passed because of an upsurge of crimes vitally affecting public order and safety
    due to the proliferation of illegally possessed and manufactured firearms, ammunition and explosives, and which
    criminal acts have resulted in the loss of human lives, damage to property and destruction of valuable resources of
    the country. The series of coup d' etats unleashed in the country during the first few years of the transitional
    government under then President Corazon P. Aquino attest to the ever-growing importance of laws such as
    Presidential Decree No. 1866 which seek to nip in the bud and preempt the commission of any act or acts which
    tend to disturb public peace and order.

    The rule is that ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What the
    law requires is merely possession which includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive
    possession or the subjection of the thing to one's control and management. Moreover, when the crime is punished
    by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has the
    intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law.

    The 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 several explosives marked in evidence as Exhibits D to D-4. 13 At first, appellant denied any knowledge about
    the explosives. Then, he alternatively contended that his act of guarding the explosives for and in behalf of Col.
    Matillano does not constitute illegal possession thereof because there was no intent on his part to possess the
    same since he was merely employed as an errand boy of Col. Matillano. His pretension of impersonal or indifferent
    material possession does not and cannot inspire credence.

    2. WON there were a valid search and seizure in this case.

    1
    CRIMINAL LAW II
    People vs. De Gracia by Leah Villaflores
    LCP

    YES. It is a valid search and seizure. The instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a
    warrantless search. In the first place, the military operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in this case,
    had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed. There was consequently more than sufficient
    probable cause to warrant their action. Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no
    opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts. The trial judge himself manifested that on
    December 5, 1989 when the raid was conducted, his court was closed. 19 Under such urgency and exigency of the
    moment, a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.

    RELEVANT LAWS APPLICABLE

    Presidential Decree No. 1866 provides as follows:

    Sec. 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or
    intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
    to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess
    any firearms, part of firearms, ammunition or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of
    any firearm or ammunition.

    If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the penalty of death shall be imposed.

    If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or
    subversion, the penalty of death shall be imposed.

    2
    CRIMINAL LAW II
    People vs. De Gracia by Leah Villaflores

    You might also like