G.R. No.

162808

April 22, 2008

FELICIANO GALVANTE, petitioner, vs. HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, Depu ! O"#u$%"&' (or )e Mili &r! &'$ O )er L&* E'(or+e"e' O((i+e%, ,IENVENIDO C. ,LANCAFLOR, Dire+ or, DENNIS L. GARCIA, Gr&( I'-e% i.& io' &'$ /ro%e+u io' O((i+er, S/O0 RAMIL AVENIDO, /O1 EDDIE DEGRAN, /O1 VALENTINO R1FANO, &'$ /O1 FEDERICO ,ALOLOT, respondents. FACTS: Private respondents confiscated from petitioner one colt pistol super .38 automatic with serial no. 6 ! 3, one short ma"a#ine, and nine super .38 live ammunitions. The confiscated materials were covered $% an e&pired 'emorandum (eceipt dated Septem$er ), *!!!. Conse+uentl%, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed a"ainst petitioner an ,nformation for ,lle"al Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in (elation to Commission on -lections .Comelec/ (esolution 0o. 3)18 $efore the (e"ional Trial Court .(TC/, Prosperidad, A"usan del Sur. Pendin" resolution of Criminal Case, petitioner filed a"ainst private respondents an administrative case for 2rave 'isconduct, $efore the ,nternal Affairs Service .,AS/, (e"ion 3,,,, and a criminal case, for Ar$itrar% 4etention, ,lle"al Search and 2rave Threats, $efore the 5m$udsman. Petitioner alle"ed that upon arrival at the house of retired police Percival Pla#a, to"ether with 6oren#o Sanoria, 4elfin (amire# and Pedro (amas, 7e immediatel% went down of the 8eep $ut $efore he could call 'r. Pla#a, four policemen in uniform $loc9ed his wa%. That the four policemen were :private respondents; P5* (omil Avenido P0P, P5* <alentino (ufano, P0P $oth mem$er of *=)nd Compan%, (e"ional 'o$ile 2roup and P5* -ddie 4e"ran P0P and P5* Federico >alolot P0P mem$ers of *=?3 Prov@l 'o$ile 2roup, all of >unawan >roo9, >unawan, A"usan del SurA who all pointed their lon" firearms read% to fire. 7e raised his arms and heard :private respondent; P5* Avenido sa%in", BA02 ,'502 PCS,6, ,7ATA2B which means B2ive me %our firearm,B to which , answered, BDA6A 'A0 E5@F PCS,6B translated as B, have no firearm,B showin" his waistline when he raised his TGshirt. 7is other companions on the 8eep also went down and raised their arms and showed their waistline when the same policemen and a person in civilian attire holdin" an armalite also pointed their firearms to them to which 'r. Percival Pla#a who came down from his house told them not to harass me as , am also a former police officer $ut the% did not heed 'r. Pla#a@s statements.

Dhile we were raisin" our arms :private respondent; SP5= >en8amin Conde, Hr. went near m% owner t%pe 8eep and conducted a search. To which , as9ed them if the% have an% search warrant. That after a while the% saw the super .38 pistol under the floor mat of the petitionerIs 8eep and as9ed for the '( of the firearm $ut due to fear that their lon" arms were still pointed to them, 7e searched his wallet and "ave the as9ed document. 7e further alle"ed that he was detained $% Police Chief (ocacor$a for two da%s havin" $een released onl% after posin" a $ail. Conse+uentl%, petitioner filed an Affidavit of 4esistance with $oth the ,AS and 5m$udsman a$solvin" private respondents Avenido, 4e"ran, (ufano and >alolot, $ut maintainin" the private respondent Conde alone $e prosecuted in $oth administrative and criminal cases. The ,AS then issued a 4ecision findin" all private respondents "uilt% of "rave misconduct even if the% were merel% $ein" enthusiastic in the conduct of the arrest in line of dut%. The (TC dismissed the case a"ainst the petitioner. 5n the other hand, the 5m$udsman dismissed the char"es a"ainst private respondents for lac9 of pro$a$le cause. ,SSC-: Dhether or not the 5m$udsman properl% dismissed the criminal complaints filed a"ainst the private respondents. 7-64: Fes. Pu$lic respondents@ dismissal of the criminal complaint for ille"al search which petitioner filed with the 5m$udsman a"ainst private respondents was proper, althou"h the reasons pu$lic respondents cited for dismissin" the complaint are rather off the mar9 $ecause the% relied solel% on the findin" that the warrantless search conducted $% private respondents was valid and that the Affidavit of 4esistance which petitioner e&ecuted cast dou$t on the veracit% of his complaint. Pu$lic respondents completel% overloo9ed the fact that the criminal complaint was not co"ni#a$le $% the 5m$udsman as ille"al search is not a criminal offense. 0evertheless, the result achieved is the same: the dismissal of a "roundless criminal complaint for ille"al search which is not an offense under the (PC. Thus, the Court need not resolve the issue of whether or not pu$lic respondents erred in their findin" on the validit% of the search for that issue is completel% h%pothetical under the circumstance.