G.R. No. 253504 , February 1, 2023.
ROEL PABLO Y PASCUAL, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Roel Pablo y Pascual was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms under Section 28(a) in relation to Section 28(e) of Republic Act No. 10591 . The prosecution’s evidence established that on September 13, 2015, police officers flagged down a motorcycle ridden by petitioner (driver) and Alvin Teriapel (rider) for traffic violations: riding without safety helmets and having a tampered license plate. Upon being asked, both could not produce their driver’s licenses. The officers also attempted to verify the motorcycle’s registration via text message with the LTO and found it had no registration papers. Finding these circumstances suspicious, the police officers conducted a bodily frisk. PO1 Nadura recovered a loaded .22 caliber pistol from petitioner’s waistline. Petitioner and Teriapel were arrested. A certification from the PNP Firearms and Explosive Office confirmed that petitioner was not a licensed firearm holder. The defense claimed the firearm was found in the motorcycle’s compartment, not on petitioner’s person, and that he was merely approached by police while talking to Teriapel on the street.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Firearms.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of Illegal Possession of Firearms were proven: (1) the existence of the firearm, and (2) petitioner’s lack of the corresponding license. The firearm was loaded with ammunition, warranting the higher penalty under Section 28(e). The Court ruled that the warrantless search was valid as a “stop and frisk.” The police officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a limited protective search based on specific, articulable facts: the multiple traffic violations (no helmets, tampered plate, no driver’s licenses, and an unregistered motorcycle), which collectively indicated a potential attempt to conceal identity and could be associated with criminal activity, such as the common “riding-in-tandem” crimes. This justified a pat-down for officer safety. The seized firearm, discovered during this lawful frisk, was admissible in evidence. The testimonies of the police officers were accorded the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, which petitioner failed to rebut with clear evidence of ill motive. The factual findings of the lower courts, which found the prosecution’s version credible, are binding.