Aniag v. Comelec [G.R. NO.

104961, October 7, 1994]

237 SCRA 194

FACTS: In preparation for the synchronized national and local elections,

the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2323, Gun Ban, promulgating
rules and regulations on bearing, carrying and transporting of firearm or
other deadly weapons on security personnel or bodyguards, on bearing
arms by members of security agencies or police organizations, and
organization or maintenance of reaction forces during the election period.
COMELEC also issued Resolution No. 2327 providing for the summary
disqualification of candidates engaged in gunrunning, using and
transporting of firearms, organizing special strike forces, and establishing
spot checkpoints. Pursuant to the Gun Ban, Mr. Serrapio Taccad,
Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, wrote petitioner for the
return of the two firearms issued to him by the House of Representatives.
Petitioner then instructed his driver, Arellano, to pick up the firearms from
petitioners house and return them to Congress. The PNP set up a
checkpoint. When the car driven by Arellano approached the checkpoint,
the PNP searched the car and found the firearms. Arellano was
apprehended and detained. He then explained the order of petitioner.
Petitioner also explained that Arellano was only complying with the
firearms ban, and that he was not a security officer or a bodyguard. Later,
COMELEC issued Resolution No.92-0829 directing the filing of
information against petitioner and Arellano for violation of the Omnibus
Election Code, and for petitioner to show cause why he should not be
disqualified from running for an elective position. Petitioner then questions
the constitutionality of Resolution No. 2327. He argues that gunrunning,
using or transporting firearms or similar weapons and other acts
mentioned in the resolution are not within the provisions of the Omnibus
Election Code. Thus, according to petitioner, Resolution No. 2327 is
unconstitutional. The issue on the disqualification of petitioner from
running in the elections was rendered moot when he lost his bid for a seat
in Congress in the elections.

ISSUE: Whether or Not petitioner can be validly prosecuted for instructing

his driver to return the firearms issued to him on the basis of the evidence
gathered from the warrant less search of his car

HELD: A valid search must be authorized by a search warrant issued by

an appropriate authority. However, a warrantless search is not violative of
the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its
occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is
merely limited to a visual search. In the case at bar, the guns were not
tucked in Arellanos waist nor placed within his reach, as they were neatly
packed in gun cases and placed inside a bag at the back of the car. Given
these circumstances, the PNP could not have thoroughly searched the car
lawfully as well as the package without violating the constitutional
injunction. Absent any justifying circumstance specifically pointing to the
culpability of petitioner and Arellano, the search could not have been valid.
Consequently, the firearms obtained from the warrantless search cannot
be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. It was also shown in the
facts that the PNP had not informed the public of the purpose of setting up
the checkpoint. Petitioner was also not among those charged by the PNP
with violation of the Omnibus Election Code. He was not informed by the
City Prosecutor that he was a respondent in the preliminary investigation.
Such constituted a violation of his right to due process. Hence, it cannot
be contended that petitioner was fully given the opportunity to meet the
accusation against him as he was not informed that he was himself a
respondent in the case. Thus, the warrantless search conducted by the
PNP is declared illegal and the firearms seized during the search cannot
be used as evidence in any proceeding against the petitioner. Resolution
No. 92-0829 is unconstitutional, and therefore, set aside.