G.R. No. 246195 . September 30, 2020.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HERMIE ESTOLANO Y CASTILLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Hermie Estolano was charged with illegal possession of an explosive under PD 1866, as amended by RA 9516. The prosecution evidence established that on April 17, 2015, police officers conducting Oplan Sita in Manila flagged down a vehicle driven by Estolano for having no license plate. When Estolano failed to present his driver’s license and vehicle registration, he was ordered to alight. PO1 Lubay, approaching to conduct a search, noticed Estolano attempting to retrieve something from his right front pocket and saw him holding the pin of a hand grenade. The officers immediately subdued him to prevent an explosion. The confiscated MK2 fragmentation grenade was later certified as functional, and a licensing office confirmed Estolano had no permit for it.
Estolano denied the charge, claiming he was merely a passenger in the vehicle driven by a friend named Lou. He alleged that after being brought to the police station, he was framed, assaulted, and solicited for a bribe. He asserted that only he was charged because he could not pay the demanded money, unlike his companion. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, finding the police officers’ testimonies credible and enjoying the presumption of regularity, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the warrantless search and seizure that yielded the hand grenade was valid, and whether the prosecution proved Estolano’s guilt for illegal possession of an explosive beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Hermie Estolano. The Court found the warrantless search and seizure invalid. The initial stop for a traffic violation (missing license plate) was valid. However, the order for Estolano to alight and the subsequent body search lacked lawful justification. A routine traffic stop does not automatically permit a search of the person. The prosecution failed to prove that the police had reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that Estolano was armed and dangerous to justify a Terry-type protective search. The claim that he acted suspiciously by hiding something was deemed insufficient, especially as it was not invoked by the prosecution as the search’s basis. The search was therefore unlawful, rendering the seized grenade inadmissible as evidence under the exclusionary rule.
Consequently, without the inadmissible grenade, the prosecution’s case collapsed. The remaining evidence was insufficient to prove the corpus delicti of the crime. The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and cannot justify an unlawful search. The burden of proving the search’s validity rests with the prosecution, which it failed to discharge. Estolano’s acquittal was ordered, and his immediate release from detention was directed unless held for another lawful cause.