G.R. No. 128869 April 14, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARK PERUCHO alias NICK PERUCHO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Mark Perucho was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for illegal possession of firearms under P.D. 1866 and disobedience to a person in authority under Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on December 21, 1992, police officers from Task Force Habagat, conducting surveillance on kidnapping suspects, located Perucho at his residence in Bulacan. They claimed to have seen him half-naked with a gun tucked in his waist. Upon approach and introduction as police officers, Perucho allegedly resisted arrest by boxing an officer, was subdued, and a .45 caliber pistol was confiscated from his person. A second pistol and ammunition were later recovered from his nipa hut after he expressed concern for his belongings before being taken to Camp Crame.
Perucho presented a starkly different version. He testified that the police officers, without identifying themselves, forcibly entered his home, handcuffed him, and mauled him. He denied possessing any firearm at the time and claimed the weapons were planted. He asserted he was wearing a t-shirt and long pants, not half-naked, and that the officers conducted a search without a warrant, only producing the alleged evidence after he was detained.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the crimes of illegal possession of firearms and disobedience to a person in authority beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Mark Perucho. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence inherently incredible and failed to meet the required quantum of proof. The legal logic centered on the unreliability of the prosecution’s narrative regarding the warrantless arrest and search. The police claimed they saw the firearm tucked in Perucho’s waist from 15-20 meters away while he was allegedly half-naked, yet also testified they approached him because he was a suspect in a kidnapping case, not initially for the visible firearm. This inconsistency cast doubt on the legality of the arrest for illegal possession in flagrante delicto. The subsequent warrantless search of his hut, justified only by his expressed concern for his belongings, was deemed unlawful. The Court emphasized that evidence must conform to human knowledge and experience. The prosecution’s version—where an armed suspect, upon seeing police, would allegedly box an officer instead of using his visible weapon—was contrary to normal human behavior. With the arrest and search rendered illegal, the firearms seized were inadmissible as evidence. Consequently, the essential element of possession for the firearms charge was not proven. The charge for disobedience likewise failed, as the resistance alleged was predicated on an invalid arrest. The conviction was reversed.